“‘See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?’ And Philip said, ‘If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.’… And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”
Acts 8:36-38
“When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper… Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.”
1 Cor. 11:20, 33
“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? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.”
1 Cor. 10:16-17
.
.
Order of Contents
Both Sacraments 6+
. Baptism 10+
. Supper 20+
. Public Supper Distributed to Secluded Persons? 3
. Supper with 3 or 4 Christians? 20+
.
Contra the Sacraments being Celebrated Privately
Articles
1500’s
Scottish Book of Common Order 1564
The Order of Baptism
“…forasmuch as it is not permitted by God’s Word, that women should preach or minister the sacraments, and it is evident, that the sacraments are not ordained of God to be used in private corners, as charms or sorceries, but left to the congregation, and necessarily annexed to God’s Word, as seals of the same: therefore the infant which is to be baptized, shall be brought to the church on the day appointed with the father and godfather. So that after the sermon, the child being presented…”
[It is very possible that this section was understood to allow for exceptions with regard to baptism. Knox was the main author of this book of common order, which was previously used in Geneva; he was also a principal author of the Scottish First Book of Discipline (below), written before this in 1560, which evidently allowed for exceptions in regard to baptism.]
.
Cartwright, Thomas
pp. 28-29 & 141-50 in Reply to an Answer made of Mr. Doctor Whitgift Against the Admonition to the Parliament ([1573])
Cartwright and the presbyterians had previously submitted an Admonition to the Parliament of England, critiquing the enforced, Anglican Book of Common Prayer, including its provision for certain private Communions of a minister and three or four Christians with sick persons. Archbishop John Whitgift defended the BoCP and such Communions in an Answer to the Admonition. This piece of Cartwright’s is a reply to that Answer.
Whitgift defended his Answer from Cartwrights Reply in the following work:
The Defense of the Answer to the Admonition Against the Reply of T.C., by John Whitgift... (London, 1574)
‘Of Ministering the Sacraments in Private Places’
‘Of Private Communion, wherewith the Admonition charges the Book of Common Prayer’
Cartwright replied to these sections of Whitgift’s Defense in the piece below.
pt. 2, ch. 3, ‘Of Ministring the Holy Sacraments in Private Houses’ in The Rest of the Second Reply of Thomas Cartwright Against Master Doctor Whitgift’s Second Answer Touching the Church Discipline (Basel, 1577), pp. 216-23
.
1600’s
Calderwood, David
‘Of the Administration of the Sacraments in Private Places’ in Perth Assembly... (1619), pp. 96-101
A leading bishop at the Perth Assembly in 1618, responded to this piece of Calderwood with the following:
Lindsay, David – ‘The Acts concluded at Perth, touching Private Baptism & Communion’ in A True Narration of All the Passages of the Proceedings in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland… 1618… together with a just defence of the Articles… against a Seditious Pamphlet [by Calderwood] (London, 1621)
The first two paragraphs are what the Perth articles state on the subject. ‘PP’ stands for ‘penner of this pamphlet’, namely the presbyterian, David Calderwood. The answers are those of Lindsay. Lindsay is leaned; sometimes he makes some good points, sometimes not.
‘Of the Administration of the Sacraments in Private Places’ in A Re-Examination of the Five Articles Enacted at Perth… (1636), pp. 221-37
Gillespie, George – ch. 1, ‘That the Ceremonies are Unlawful Because Superstitious, which is Particularly Instanced in Holy Days & Ministering the Sacraments in Private Places’ in The English-Popish Ceremonies… (1637), pt. 3 (separately paginated), pp. 1-15
English Presbyterian & Independent Ministers
The Papers that passed between the Commissioners Appointed by his Majesty for the Alteration of the Common Prayer, etc. (London, 1661)
The Exceptions of the Presbyterian Brethren, against some Passages in the Present Liturgy
‘Of Private Baptism’
‘Of the Communion of the Sick’ The ministers make no scruple here about a company of three or four.
The Papers that Passed between the Commissioners appointed by His Majesty for the Alteration of the Common Prayer, etc.
‘Private Baptism’
‘Visitation of the Sick’ The ministers make no scruple here about a company of three or four.
This is an account of the debate at the Savoy Conference (1661).
.
Contra Baptism being Administered Privately
Quotes
Scottish First Book of Discipline 1560
9th Head, Concerning the Policy of the Church
“It appertains to the policy of the church to appoint the times when the sacraments shall be ministered. Baptism may be ministered whensoever the word is preached; but we think it more expedient that it be ministered upon the Sunday, or upon the [mid-week] day of prayers, only after the sermon; partly to remove this gross error by the which many deceived think that children are damned if they die without baptism; and partly to make the people assist the administration of that sacrament with greater reverence than they do. For we do see the people begin already to wax weary by reason of the frequent repetition of those promises.”
[Notice that the language here is only of expediency, and it evidently allows for a greater breadth.]
.
Theodore Beza
The Other Part of Christian Questions & Answers, which is concerning the Sacraments… (London, 1580), 151st Question
“But dost thou think that nothing ought to be determined concerning the place [for baptism]?
Answer: Yea, seeing all things must be done in the Church comely and in order: and forasmuch as baptism is a part of the ministry of the Gospel, I think that one and the same place is to be used both for the Word and sacraments, so as baptism be ministered in the public congregation of the Church and with common prayer [mid-week], neither will I rashly admit those, I cannot tell what, cases of necessity, that some allege to the contrary.”
.
George Gillespie
A Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies… (1637), pt. 3, ch. 6, p. 96
“Dr. Forbess goes about to warrant private baptism by Philip’s baptizing the eunuch, there being no greater company present, so far as we can gather from the narration of Luke, Acts 8. As likewise by Paul and Silas, their baptizing the goaler [jailer] and all his in his own private house, Acts 16. Touching the first of those places, we answer:
1. How thinks he that a man of so great authority and charge was alone in his journey? We suppose a great man traveling in a chariot must have some number of attendants, especially having come to a solemn worship at Jeru∣salem.
2. What Philip then did, the extraordinary direction of the Spirit guided him unto it, vv. 29, 39. As to the other place, there was in that time of persecution no liberty for Christians to meet together in temples and public places as now there is. Wherefore the example of Paul and Silas does prove the lawfulness of the like deed in the like case.”
.
Westminster Directory of Public Worship
Of the Administration of the Sacraments: and First, of Baptism
“Nor is it [baptism] to be administered in private places, or privately, but in the place of public worship, and in the face of the congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear; and not in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed.”
.
Articles
Leigh, Edward – ‘Private Baptism’ in bk. 8, ch. 8, ‘Of Baptism’ in A System or Body of Divinity… (London, 1654), pp. 676-78
Langley, Samuel – ‘Whether (or if at all in what cases) Baptism may be now Administered Privately, not Publicly?’ 20 pp. being the bottom 2/3rds of the Epistle Dedicatory of Suspension Reviewed, Stated, Cleared & Settled upon Plain Scripture-Proof: Agreeable to the former & late constitutions of the Protestant Church of England & other Reformed Churches… (London, 1658) no page numbers
Langley (d. 1694) was an English minister. This is a significant treatment.
“But as public baptism is that which is now performed in the public place, where public ordinances are usually administered, the accustomed signs being given for the assembling of the congregation there, at such time when it is to be celebrated, so private baptism, on the contrary, is that which is done either in the place of public assembly when no public notice is duly given for the congregation to resort thither, or in a private house, where although many are present, yet it is not free, or at least its generally supposed it would not be civil for any Christian that will, though uninvited, to come to the ordinance of baptism there administered.”
Strong, Martin – The Indecency & Unlawfulness of Baptizing Children in Private: without Necessity & with the Public Form… to which is added, a Brief Exhortation to the Constant Receiving of the Lord’s Supper (London: Tho. Bennet, 1692) 35 pp.
Strong (c.1663-) was a conforming, puritan, Anglican clergyman. Not every statement of this tract is recommended.
“But to prevent all mistakes, it must be remembered, that exception and allowance is still to be made for the case of invincible necessity, of extreme sickness, and danger of death; at which time the [Anglican] Church admits of private baptism…” – p. 2, also p. 20
.
Latin Article
Vitringa, Sr., Campegius – ‘Of the Place of Baptism’ in The Doctrine of the Christian Religion, Summarily Described through Aphorisms (d. 1722), vol. 7, ch. 24, ‘Of Baptism’, pp. 171-74
.
Qualifications
Articles
French Reformed Churches
John Quick, Synodicon (London, 1692)
The Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France (1559), ch. 11, Canon 6, p. xlv
“No baptism shall be administred but in Church assemblies or where there is a formed public Church. But where there is no public Church and the parents through infirmity are afraid to carry them unto public baptism in the congregation, ministers shall consult how far in prudence they ought to yield unto them. Yet nevertheless there shall be some face of a Church and both exhortation and prayer; but if there be no Church, and a congregation cannot be assembled, the minister shall not make any difficulty to baptize the infants of believing parents tendered to him, with exhortation and prayer.”
.
2nd Synod, at Poictiers (1560), ch. 6, section 8, p. 18
“As to that question, Whether baptism may be lawfully administred extraordinarily where the child is ready to die? It was resolved that in those places where the Word of God is ordinarily preached, the established order shall be observed; but in such places where sermons are had only extraordinarily, at an undue hour, it is left to the minister’s discretion to accommodate themselves to the infirmities of parents, yet to be very careful that they do not nourish them up in superstition.”
.
Synod of St. Maixant (1609), ch. 3,
“10. On the 6th Article of the 11th Chapter [of The Discipline of the Reformed Chuches of France, 1559], a question was propounded by the Province of Higher Languedoc, Whether in case of grievous sickness, and the child being in apparent danger of death, he might be baptized on lecture-days, before sermon began, and whether baptism might be administred at such times when as there is no sermon preached, but only public common-prayers?
It was answered that if the consistory, or any of the elders did attest the malady of the infant, the pastor might do it [the baptism]. And if the observation of this article should beget new difficulties, the provinces were intreated to come prepared unto the next national synod, for their assoiling of them.”
.
Latin Article
Vitringa, Sr., Campegius – ‘Of the Place of Baptism’, pp. 171 (rt col bot) – 174 in The Doctrine of the Christian Religion, Summarily Described through Aphorisms (d. 1722), vol. 7, ch. 24, ‘Of Baptism’
.
Quotes
John Calvin
Letters of John Calvin, vol. 3 ed. Jules Bonnet trans. Marcus Gilchrist (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication), Letter 368, ‘To John Paule’, p. 87
“But since this sacrament [of baptism] is a solemn reception into the church of God, or rather a testimony of burghership in the heavenly city into which are enrolled all those whom God adopts for his children, above all things it is to be observed that it is not lawful to administer it except in the society of professed believers.
Not that it is necessary to have a public temple, but assuredly it is indispensable that there should be a certain flock assembled, forming a body constituted as a church, and recognizing for its pastor, the person appointed to baptize. For should a child be baptized in private and without witnesses, the ceremony would in no wise correspond to the ordinance instituted by Jesus Christ, nor to the practice of the Apostles. It is then requisite that the child should be baptized in a society that keeps itself separate from the pollutions of Popery.”
.
Thomas Cartwright
The Defense of the Answer to the Admonition Against the Reply of T.C., by John Whitgift… (London, 1574), p. 513
“For St. Paul’s baptizing in the house of the jailor had been more fit for him [John Whitgift], for unto his place it may be easily answered that Cornelius, having so great a family, as it is like he had, and besides that diverse soldiors underneath him, and further his friends and his acquaintance which he had called, had a competent number, and as many as would make a congregation, and as could commodiously be preached unto in one place.
But the answer to both these examples, and other such like, as that St. Paul baptized in the house of Ananias [Acts 9] is easy. For there being persecutions at that time, so that it was not safe, neither for the minister nor for the people, to be seen, it was meet that they should do it in houses, which otherwise they would have done in open places: and then those houses which receive the congregation are not, as I have showed, for the time to be counted private houses: and further in places where the gospel has not been received, nor no church gathered, but one only household embracing the Gospel, I say in such a case, and especially in the time of persecution, where should the ministers preach, or minister the sacraments more conveniently than in that house where those professors of the gospel be?
Now to draw this into our churches, which may safely come into open places, and where the church and congregation stands of diverse households, is a token of greate want of judgment, in shuffling those things together which, for the great diversity of their natures, will not be mingled.”
.
William Cotton
Cotton, William – ch. 10, ‘Private Communion’ in Answer to the Reasons for Refusal of Subscription in Reasons for Refusal of Subscription to the Book of Common Prayer under the hands of certain Ministers of Devon and Cornwall... as they were exhibited by them to the Right Reverend Father in God William Coton… with an Answer... (London, 1605), p. 194 Cotton was an Anglican bishop.
“First ‘private’ signifies that which is done privily in a clanculary [clandestine] manner by stealth, without authority contrary to God’s Word by Jesuits, seminary priests, schismatical teachers, and the like; in which sort, if any of our [antagonist] brethren mean, they prove nothing against us, for our [Anglican] Church generally condemns such conventicles, whether of heretics, or schismatics.
Secondly, private baptism signifies in the meaning of the [Prayer] Book, that which is administered by a lawful minister at home, where the child is born, a competent number being assembled, the child being weak, the church or chapel far distant, the season of the year oversharp, the way very inconvenient, all which, or the like occasions, are matters of circumstance; the lawfulness of baptism is no way frustrated, nor made void, nor against God’s Word, nor a private action. For as one well notes, ‘Sacraments though they be in private places administered, yet are public actions.’ ([Andrew Willet] Synopsis Papismi, p. 490)”
.
Contra the Lord’s Supper being Celebrated Privately
Quotes
French Reformed Churches
The Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France, ch. 12, ‘Of the Lord’s Supper’ (1559) in ed. John Quick, Synodicon in Gallia Reformata… (London, 1692), Introduction, p. xlvii
“Canon 1: Where there is no form of a Church, the Lord’s Supper shall not be administered.”
.
John Jewel
To H. Bullinger & Lavater (1566) in The Zurich Letters… (Parker Society, 1846), p. 207
“…when I preached at court before the [English] Queen’s majesty, and was speaking about the antiquity of the popish religion, I remember that I said this among other things, that our enemies, when they accuse our cause of novelty, both wrong us and deceive the people; for that they approved new things as if they were old and condemned as new things of the greatest antiquity; that their private masses and their mutilated communions, and the natural and real presence and transubstantiation, etc. (in which things the whole of their religion is contained) have no certain and express testimony either of holy scripture or ancient councils, or fathers, or of anything that could be called antiquity.”
.
Henry Bullinger
Decades (Parker Society, 1852), 5th Decade, Sermon 9, ‘Of the Lord’s Holy Supper’, pp. 417-8
“Herein now we disprove the papistical doctrine which allows of private masses and teaches that the priest offers up the body and blood of our Lord for the standers by; and that by the mass he applies the merit of redemption unto them that with devotion come to that sacrifice. For as there is no one word of the Lord extant that commands the priests to sacrifice or privately to apply the supper for others, or that promises anything unto them that stand by and look on it (for He says, “Do this; eat ye and drink ye all in the remembrance of me;” He says not, ‘Look upon the priests only while they be eating and drinking for you’)…
…
Concerning the place where the supper is to be celebrated, I find no contention has been amongst the most ancient ministers of the Church. It is read how that our Lord Jesus used the hall of a certain private man’s house. And also the apostle Paul both preached and brake bread at Troas in a certain dining-place (Acts 20)… At this present there seems no place to be more worthy or more commodious to celebrate the holy supper in, than that which is appointed for doctrine and prayer. For so have we learned of St. Paul, 1 Cor. ch. 11. Howbeit, if tyrannical power will not suffer us to have a church, what shall let us but that we may reverently celebrate the supper in honest private houses?”
.
John Rainolds
The Sum of the Conference between John Rainolds [a puritan] & John Hart [a Romanist] touching the Head & the Faith of the Church… (London, 1584) Rainolds (1549–1607)
p. 583
“Which shows (by the way) that your private mass and Communion under one kind was against the tradition and order of the apostles, by the judgment of the Church of Rome and Popes themselves above a thousand years after Christ (For Hildebrand was Pope in the year of Christ, 1,084).”
.
p. 730
“They take away the right use of the communion by their private masses.”
.
William Attersoll
The Badges of Christianity, or a Treatise of the Sacraments… (London, 1606), bk. 3, ‘Of the Lord’s Supper’
p. 206
“Secondly, as this sacrament being a communion admonishes that we are all one in Christ: so it teaches that it is to be received of many together in the church, not of one alone, and therefore it overthrows the private masses of the church of Rome, where one partakes all and the rest of the Church nothing at all. There is a flat opposition between these two: so that the communion cannot be a private mass, and private mass cannot be a communion. That which is ordained and prepared for many, delivered unto many, and received of many, cannot stand with the mass, where the priest prepares for himself, not for the people: he speaks to himself, not to the church: he receives himself alone, not with his brethren: all which are directly contrary to the apostles rule, ‘Tarry one for another.’”
.
pp. 276-77
“Furthermore, did Christ deliver his Last Supper to all his disciples that were present? Did none stand by, and gaze on while other received? Then hereby fall to the ground the private communions of the popish Church, where all is devoured by the priest, nothing delivered to the people.
For whereas the ordinance of Christ and ancient order of the church was for the minister and people to receive the sacrament together: among them the priest accompanied with his boy to make answer, receives the sacrament himself alone, without distribution made to others, yea although the whole congregation be present and look upon him, whereby God is dishonored, the communion is abolished, the people of God are there by deprived and robbed of all comfort. How is this a feast which the priest prepares for himself, not for others: receives by himself, not with his brethren: he speaks to himself, and not to the assembly: he uses a strange tongue, and no man knows what he means: the people is taught nothing, they understand nothing, they hear nothing, they receive nothing; and a few childish, apish, foolish, and unseemly gestures excepted, they see nothing: they taste nothing, they partake nothing, neither comfort of heart, nor memory of Christ, nor benefit of his passion.
But Christ in his Last Supper, did not eat up all alone, but after the disciples had supped as Mathew sets it down, He took bread and blessed He brake and gave it to them, saying, ‘Take ye, eat ye:’ neither did He drink alone of the fruit of the vine, but taking the cup He gave thanks, and gave to them all, saying, ‘Drink ye all of this.’ So then, albeit a certain number of communicants are not limited and determined: yet Christ in these words appoints a company to be present, as appears by the number, ‘take ye, eat ye,’ ‘drink ye all,’ ‘divide ye it among yourselves,’ ‘do ye this in my remembrance,’ ‘ye set forth the Lord’s death,’ ‘when ye come together to eat,’ ‘tarry ye one for another,’ ‘as often as ye shall eat this bread.’
These words cannot be understood of one particular man, but necessarily import a greater number of men: nay, the Philosopher teaches that the word ‘all’ must be verified at the least of the number of three, which is the least and lowest number that would be admitted to this supper. Neither do we read that so soon as one was gained to the faith, that the apostles administered this sacrament to him, much less would they minister to themselves alone, when none were converted in a nation or city.”
.
pp. 278-79
“Lastly, the names given to this sacrament, noting the nature thereof, do afford us a good consideration to strike through the heart of this private mass, being called sometimes the Supper of the Lord, and sometimes a Communion among ourselves. If it be an holy supper and spiritual banquet, why are none bidden and called thereunto? If it be a communion, why does the priest uncharitably swallow all alone? whereby they make it a communion, but without company: a supper, but without guests: meat, but without eating: drink, but without drinking: a table, but without sitting down: a participation, but without any that are partakers: a banquet, but without seeding thereat, the people departing as hungry and thirsty as they came. Wherefore, as no man celebrated the Passover aright, or received profit thereby, but such as did eat the flesh thereof: so can none come to the supper of the Lord as he ought, though he look upon others, except he eat of the bread and drink of the cup, according to the commandment of Christ, the author thereof. And thus much of the sole communions and private masses brought into the church against the example of Christ against the use of the apostles, and against the name and nature of the sacrament itself.”
.
George Gillespie
English Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 2, ch. 2, 14
“The same prelate pleads for the expediency of giving the Communion to the sick in private houses, because he thinks they should not want [lack] this mean of comfort: As if the wanting of the sacramental signs, not procured by a man’s own negligence or contempt, could stop or stay the comforts of the Holy Spirit.
Nay, it is not so: we have seen some who received not the Communion in time of their sickness, end more gloriously and comfortably than ever we heard of any who received the sacrament for their viaticum [journey] when they were a dying.”
.
Robert MacWard
The True Non-Conformist… ([Amsterdam?] 1671), 5th Dialogue, pp. 292-94
“From baptism, you [Gilbert Burnet] pass to plead for the private administration of the Communion to persons on death-bed, and this you think the seasonableness of its use and the propriety of its ends to such a case do abundantly persuade: To which I answer:
1. That though at no time faith and love need more to be quickened, the death of Christ more to be remembered, nor communion with the Church to be declared, than in the approach of the last pangs, it will not thence follow that therefore the Communion may then be privately administrat[ed]: for, since not the seasonableness of the fruits, but the warrant and rule given unto us is first to be heeded in the going about of holy administrations; nay, since that without this regard duly adhibit the blessing and fruits are but in vain expected, it is evident that barely from the exigence of the fruits to conclude, in any case, the lawfulness of the celebration, is preposterous religion and worse reason: Now
2. That the rule set down to us in this sacrament does reprobate this your observance is evident not only from that connection that there is and ought to be observed betwixt the word and Sacraments: But,
1. From our Lord’s own pattern in the institution, keeping this solemnity with the company of his disciples, making as it were a little Christian Church:
2. Because the apostle in his regulation of this sacrament, according and with respect to his Master’s pattern, does suppose the Church’s coming together into one place, and consequently the ordinary Church assemblies, as a necessary requisite in the free and peaceable times of the Church:
3. Because the very mystery of the Lord’s Supper, representing the union of believers with and their communion in Jesus Christ their Head and the name that it has thence obtained, 1 Cor. 10:16-17, is not well consistent with this private administration: ‘Tis true, the authors of your [Perth] Articles, not being able to decline the convincing evidence of this reason, do, among other preparations, require that there be three or four, free of lawful impediments, present with the sick person to communicate with him; but as such a packed conventicle, beside other inconveniences, has no just resemblance of the Church her ordinary assemblies, much less can communicating with hand-wealed companions be a sign of that free, equable and comprehensive communion signified by this sacrament; so, it is manifest, that the forementioned requisite is only a colorable evasion, manifestly acknowledging the force of our argument, andin fraudem Legis, salvis verbis sententiam ejus circumveniens: But
3. This your private Communion is to be reprobate because, as the decumbent’s faith, love, and other graces in that hour of his need are only best excited by the means at that time allowed and competent, and the sanctified remembrance and improvement of other privileges and ordinances formerly enjoyed, so, it is certain, that this observance has not only been abused by the Papists unto the abomination of their private mass, but is also rejected by the Reformed Churches, not Lutheran, as found to be inductive of vain superstition wherever it is used; and for this I need not go far in search of confirmations, for you yourself in telling us that your practice was very early in the Church, subjoin that Justin Martyr says they sent of the Eucharist to them that were absent, and that the story of Serapion shows how necessary Christians then thought it to be guarded by this holyviaticum[journey], which two instances, whether true or false, being generally held to be an excess, both inclining to and introductive of vain superstition, and therefore, reckoned among the first Naevi [novelties] appearing in the face of the primitive Church, and now generally disused by all the Churches of Christ, as they are by you adduced, do to evidently demonstrate how much both your spirit and customs do bend to a relapse in these evils.”
.
Leonard Rijssen
A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary trans. J. Wesley White MTh thesis (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), ch. 17, ‘The Sacraments’, p. 238
“Controversy 11 – Should the holy Supper for convenience be celebrated by the sick in private dwellings? We deny against the Lutherans.
Arguments:
1. Christ only administered the Supper in the assembly of the disciples.
2. Paul wanted us to gather together and to wait on one another (1 Cor. 11:33).
3. The Supper seals communion of many with Christ, because all are partakers of the one bread.
Objections:
1. Christ performed it in private houses. Reply: But the Church gathered there.
2. The sick need the confirmation of their faith. Reply: From the Word of God, and they can have that confirmation from a Supper they have taken previously.
Controversy 12 – Should the leftover bread and wine from the holy Supper be kept in vases or containers to be solemnly carried around to the sick and for other similar uses? We deny against the Papists.
Arguments:
1. The water of baptism cannot be carried around this way, for many were baptized in a river (Acts 8:38); therefore, the bread of the Supper should not be either.
2. It is only a sacrament when it is used, and it has no greater sanctity outside of that use than any other bread.
3. There is no example or institution of it in the Word of God.
Objections:
1. It is the body of Christ. Reply: No. The body of Christ is not bread.
2. It is the cup of the New Testament. Reply: Insofar as it is a sign and seal of it.”
.
Heinrich Heppe
Reformed Dogmatics ed. Bizer & trans. Thomson (1950; Wipf & Stock, 2007), ch. 26, ‘The Lord’s Supper’, pp. 635-36
“13. Since the Supper is a feast of the fellowship of the covenant of grace, it must also be celebrated in fellowship in the house of the Lord. Hence the offering of the Supper to individuals, who wish to receive it by themselves in God’s house separated from the congregation, as well as to sick persons in private houses, must rank as illegal.
Bucan (XLVIII, 125): ‘In what place is (the H. Supper) to be administered? In public assembly, not to individuals privately or to those ill in bed at home or about to die without the congregation of the faithful and their participation. Communication should be ecclesiastical and public, not an idion deipnon [a private supper]. And the Supper is a symbol of the communion of saints and access should not be opened to the opinion of opus operatum [the work having worked] and preposterous fiducia [trust] as it is in the Papist communion.’
Beza (III, 364): ‘The Lord’s Supper is not the private act of a family but purely ecclesiastical.’
Polan (VI, 56): ‘They do ill who make of the public and common feast of the whole believing gathering a private supper of their own, in which only certain people, and those the richer and more powerful in this world, eat of the Lord’s bread and drink of his cup, others not being expected or not admitted.–These do much worse, who administer the H. Supper publicly or in private houses to one person only, whether averse from unaccustomedness to communion with others and demanding a single supper for himself alone, or sick at his home and, when properly well, wantonly neglectful of the use of the Lord’s Supper in public assembly or caring little for it.’
.
Articles
1500’s
Musculus, Wolfgang – ‘Of the which are ready to die, and prisoners’ in Common Places of Christian Religion (London, 1563), pp. 317b – 318b
Bullinger, Henry
‘Whether it be to be celebrated against imminent dangers?’ & ‘The Supper not to be celebrated at home or privately, for the sick nor whole’ in Decades (Parker Society, 1852), 5th Decade, Sermon 9, ‘Of the Lord’s Holy Supper’, pp. 427-31
Bullinger speaks against a communion with four or five (p. 428 bot).
p. 358 of ‘Bullinger’s Remarks upon the Preceding [Anglican Administration of Common Prayer]’ inThe Zurich Letters (Second Series) (Parker Society, 1845)
Beza, Theodore – Question 242, ‘Of the Celebration of the Supper of the Lord in Private Houses besides the Time of the Ecclesiastical Meeting’ in The Other Part of Christian Questions & Answers, which is Concerning the Sacraments (London, 1580)
Beza allows for a Supper in the Church congregation to be distributed to those who are sick and secluded, but not for the Supper to be celebrated to the sick when it is not ministered in the congregation.
Willet, Andrew – 5th Question, ‘Of Private Masses’ in 13th Controversy, ‘Of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper…’, 2nd part in Synopsis Papismi, that is, ‘A General View of Papistry’ (1592), pp. 485-87
.
1600’s
Bucan, William – ‘In what place is it to be administered?’ in Institutions of Christian Religion… (London, 1601), 48th Place, ‘Of the Supper of the Lord’, p. 931
Bucan disallows a private celebration of the Supper for the sick, though allows for distributing the elements from a public celebration to the secluded if done well.
Leigh, Edward – ‘Of Private Receiving of the Lord’s Supper’ in bk. 8, ch. 10, ‘Of the Mass’ in A System or Body of Divinity (1654), p. 700
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Alsted, Johann Heinrich – Controversy 19, ‘In what place is the sacred Supper to be administered? Ordinarily in the public assembly of the Church’ in Polemical Theology… (Hanau, 1620; 1627), Part 5, ‘…Controversies which are now agitated in these times between… Lutherans and Calvinists’, Class 7, p. 674
Alting, Henry – Question 2, ‘Whether the breaking of the bread is so an indifferent ceremony that it may be left off? Whether the Supper ought to be offered separately to the sick? And whether rations of bread by place are to used for hosts (commonly so called) or circular wafers of bread?’ in A Logical & Theological Exegesis of the Augsburg Confession with an Appended Problem: Whether the Reformed Churches in Germany ought to be Known & Held to be Partners with Respect to the Augsburg Confession?; a Syllabus of Controversies which the Reformed currently have with the Lutheran is Appended (Amsterdam, 1647), A Syllabus of Controversies with the Lutherans, pt. 2, pp. 265-29
Chamier, Daniel – ch. 20. ‘Of the Private Mass’ in A Body of Theology, or Theological Common Places (Geneva, 1653), bk 7, pp. 423-28
Voet, Gisbert – 7th Question, ‘Whether a private Supper, without other communicants, or some sole healthy person, or in a home being detained by disease or in an article consituted by death[?], is able to be extended?’ in Ecclesiastical Politics, vol. 1 (Amsterdam, 1663), pt. 1, bk. 2, tract 2, section 4, ‘Of the Administration of the Supper’, ch. 3, ‘Of the Persons who Distribute & of Communicants’, pp. 758-67
.
1700’s
Vitringa, Sr., Campegius – ‘Of the Place of the Sacred Supper’ in The Doctrine of the Christian Religion, Summarily Described through Aphorisms (d. 1722), vol. 8, ch. 24, ‘Of the Lord’s Supper’, pp. 406-10
.
Whether a Public Supper may be Distributed to Secluded Persons?
For ‘No’ responses, see under the 3 or 4 Christians section below.
.
Yes
Quotes
Some Divines
David Calderwood, Perth Assembly… ([Leiden] 1619), pp. 100-101
“Some divines condescend thus far, that the communion may be sent to the sick in the time of the public action.
.
Peter Martyr Vermigli
A Discourse or Treatise… concerning the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (London, 1550), p. lxxi
“Neither can ye also of this matter, or of any my words gather that any part that remains after the receiving of the sacrament should be worshipped. For whatsoever strength the outward signs in the sacraments have, they have it of the Holy Ghost, of the Lord’s words, and of his institution and ordinance. Which things do no longer remain than while the use and receiving of the sacrament does continue. And the promise of God is applied to this sacrament whiles we eat and drink the sacrament. Wherefore that opinion and doctrine of reserving the sacrament was not catholic, nor universally used or received in the Christian congregations…
We do not deny but that the leavings of the sacrament were sometimes reserved and kept: but it was done without any worshipping of it, and without any superstitious points of reverence. The leavings of this sacrament were delivered to children and to women to be carried to sick folk, as it is plain in the history of Eusebius and in Jerome, one of the doctors of the Church. And I would somewhat stagger to say the receiving of such leavings being done privately out of the holy company, and without the order and manner of receiving the communion instituted of Christ, was a right, a full and a perfect receiving of the communion or of the sacrament, which receiving of the sacrament among the sick folks I could yet nevertheless grant unto, so that the same do repeat the holy words of Christ and so ye some honest Christians do there among themselves put in use the ordinance of Christ in this behalf.
For except more persons than one alone do receive the communion together: the due order and course of receiving this sacrament is not observed and kept. Christ’s words were to more than one, in this sort: Accipe, edite et bibite: that is to say, ‘Take ye, eat ye, and drink ye.’ There is bread broken into sundry pieces, which thing means that it should be dealed about and distributed to more than one. And they speak many things in their canon of the old mass, which unless a number do receive it together, are stark false and very lies.
And besides this, it is called of learned men, coena, a supper, communio, a communion, and synaxis, a gathering or coming together: which names do nothing agree with a private action or doing of one person alone by himself. Neither do we in any place read in old writers of any private masses where one alone might receive the sacrament without the company of others.
Honorius, bishop of Rome, was the first that made a decree that the sacrament of eucharistia should be reserved and kept and decreed further, that honor and reverence should be done to it, when it was carried abroad any whither. That if this thing had been done of others before his days, it had not belonged unto him to make a decree of any such thing. And to speak in a brief sum, we affirm and hold (as we have before said) that this sacrament has not his full strength and virtue and efficacy but whiles it is in doing and in executing, and whiles it is in receiving: which thing you see also to be done in all the other sacraments [such as the brazen serpent].”
.
Theodore Beza
Question 242, ‘Of the Celebration of the Supper of the Lord in Private Houses besides the Time of the Ecclesiastical Meeting’ in The Other Part of Christian Questions & Answers, which is Concerning the Sacraments (London, 1580), no page numbers
“Do you think that the Supper of the Lord ought to be celebrated in any other place than in the common and public congregation?
Answer: This was a custom in the beginning of the old Church, that the sacrament should be sent by deacons to the sick that were absent from the public meeting, that is to say, at that time that the mysteries were celebrated of the rest in that meeting, because it was meet that those whom one disease did let [prevent] to be present in body, should be accompted as if they were present: neither do I doubt but that that thing brought great comfort to those that were sick, the which custom I would very gladly [wish it] were restored.
But whether it be meet to be celebrated to the sick at that time when the Supper of the Lord is not ministred in the Church, of this I greatly doubt.
…
Notwithstanding I do acknowledge that in this case it is somewhat diverse. For although it were very meet that these mysteries throughout [the] whole [of] Christendom, albeit in diverse places, yet notwithstanding daily also if it were possible, or at least upon appointed and set days were celebrated, which should profit very much to the witnessing of that same mutual fellowship and consolation in Christ: notwithstanding forasmuch as neither of both can be obtained for many just and necessary causes it seems, I know not in what sort to be contrary to the institution of the Supper of the Lord, that all the rest of the Church omitting it, some one house extraordinarily should celebrate those mysteries. Moreover, unless that were done amongst all those that were sick, how shall the suspicion of partiality in respecting of persons be shunned?
Now if the Supper of the Lord be to be ministered amongst all that are sick, let pastors see by what means the profanation thereof may be avoided and how they may satisfy and undergo so great labors. The custom therefore of certain [persons] do nothing at all [to] move me, although that it be very ancient, because the matter is to be judged not by examples, but by reasons…
But if a man think that he can shun all these inconveniences, and think that those mysteries may be ministred to a sick man in the congre∣gration, he requiring it, upon these conditions I would not be against this custom.”
.
William Bucan
In what place is it to be administered?’ in Institutions of Christian Religion… (London, 1601), 48th Place, ‘Of the Supper of the Lord’, p. 931
“In the time of Justin the Deacon some did carry that which was left of the Communion, at what time the Lord’s Supper was celebrated, to them which were absent by reason of their disease, from the public assembly or unto strangers, and outlandish bishops into their inn. And as Eusebius reports (Church History, Ch. 5, bk. 24), the bishop of Rome was wont to do so, but without superstition, and for no other end but for a token of concord and consent in doctrine and in the whole profession: but because we say that we must not so much enquire whether those fragments were sent, or but whether they were well sent.
And that custom has degenerated into superstition, whereby at this day the host is carried to them alone which are about to die, and that for certain gain and advantage, as also in a vain persuasion of a certain necessary provision for their journey, that custom of carrying the Supper to the absent, is worthily taken away in our Churches. Cyprian in the administration of this sacrament, ‘We ought to do no other thing than that which Christ did.'”
.
Latin Article
Vitringa, Sr., Campegius – pp. 410-11 of ‘Of the Place of the Sacred Supper’ in The Doctrine of the Christian Religion, Summarily Described through Aphorisms (d. 1722), vol. 8, ch. 24, ‘Of the Lord’s Supper’
.
.
Whether the Supper may be Celebrated by a Minister with the Secluded
& 3 or 4 Christians?
.
Yes
Quotes
Martin Bucer d. 1551
Censures upon the Communion Book as trans. and quoted by John Whitgift, The Defense of the Answer to the Admonition Against the Reply of T.C., by John Whitgift... (London, 1574), ‘Of Private Communion…’, p. 528
“And those things which are commanded [in the Book of Common Prayer respecting a Communion for the sick, with a minister and three or four Christians] in this behalf do well enough agree with the Holy Scriptures: for to receive the Communion of the Lord, and to be partaker of his Table, does not a little avail unto the comfort of afflicted consciences, if it be received according to the Lord’s institution.”
.
Peter Martyr Vermigli
A Discourse or Treatise… concerning the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (London, 1550), p. lxxi
“Neither can ye also of this matter, or of any my words gather that any part that remains after the receiving of the sacrament should be worshipped. For whatsoever strength the outward signs in the sacraments have, they have it of the Holy Ghost, of the Lord’s words, and of his institution and ordinance. Which things do no longer remain than while the use and receiving of the sacrament does continue. And the promise of God is applied to this sacrament whiles we eat and drink the sacrament. Wherefore that opinion and doctrine of reserving the sacrament was not catholic, nor universally used or received in the Christian congregations…
We do not deny but that the leavings of the sacrament were sometimes reserved and kept: but it was done without any worshipping of it, and without any superstitious points of reverence. The leavings of this sacrament were delivered to children and to women to be carried to sick folk, as it is plain in the history of Eusebius and in Jerome, one of the doctors of the Church. And I would somewhat stagger to say the receiving of such leavings being done privately out of the holy company, and without the order and manner of receiving the communion instituted of Christ, was a right, a full and a perfect receiving of the communion or of the sacrament, which receiving of the sacrament among the sick folks I could yet nevertheless grant unto, so that the same do repeat the holy words of Christ and so ye some honest Christians do there among themselves put in use the ordinance of Christ in this behalf.
For except more persons than one alone do receive the communion together: the due order and course of receiving this sacrament is not observed and kept. Christ’s words were to more than one, in this sort: Accipe, edite et bibite: that is to say, ‘Take ye, eat ye, and drink ye.’ There is bread broken into sundry pieces, which thing means that it should be dealed about and distributed to more than one. And they speak many things in their canon of the old mass, which unless a number do receive it together, are stark false and very lies.
And besides this, it is called of learned men, coena, a supper, communio, a communion, and synaxis, a gathering or coming together: which names do nothing agree with a private action or doing of one person alone by himself. Neither do we in any place read in old writers of any private masses where one alone might receive the sacrament without the company of others.
Honorius, bishop of Rome, was the first that made a decree that the sacrament of eucharistia should be reserved and kept and decreed further, that honor and reverence should be done to it, when it was carried abroad any whither. That if this thing had been done of others before his days, it had not belonged unto him to make a decree of any such thing. And to speak in a brief sum, we affirm and hold (as we have before said) that this sacrament has not his full strength and virtue and efficacy but whiles it is in doing and in executing, and whiles it is in receiving: which thing you see also to be done in all the other sacraments [such as the brazen serpent].”
.
Intro to Calvin’s Quote
For a fuller and more explicit explication of Calvin’s view, and the circumstances surrounding it, which greatly shed light on the below quote, see the article on Calvin below and the Latin article of compiled Calvin quotes.
.
John Calvin
Second Defense of the… Sacraments, in Answer to the Calumnies of Joachim Westphal (1556) in Tracts, containing Treatises on the Sacraments… vol. 2 trans. Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1849), pp. 320-21
“His second objection is that the Lord’s Supper is not given to the sick at their homes. I wish that they [the Lutherans] had gone before us in this with a purer example. Had they been careful to adapt their practice to the genuine rule of Christ, we would willingly have followed them. But since nothing is less accordant with the doctrine of our heavenly Master than that the bread should be carried about in procession like cakes in a fair, and then that one individual should receive in private and eat apart, disregarding the law of communicating, pious and learned men were from the very first much averse to private dispensations of the Supper.
Nothing, therefore, can be more absurd than Westphal’s calumny, that owing to the crafty counsel of Satan, poor souls are deprived of consolation. For we [the Genevan Church] carefully recall to the remembrance of the sick the pledge of life which was once deposited with us, that they may thence confirm their faith, and borrow weapons for the spiritual combat. In short, we herein profit so far that the Supper received in the public assembly, according to the ordinance of Christ, supports them with present consolation not less effectually than if they were to enjoy it privately without communion.”
.
Scottish Articles of Perth 1618
As given in David Lindsay, ‘The Acts concluded at Perth, touching Private Baptism & Communion’ in A True Narration of All the Passages of the Proceedings in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland… 1618… together with a just defence of the Articles… against a Seditious Pamphlet [by Calderwood] (London, 1621)
“If any good Christian visited with long sickness and known to the pastor, by reason of his present infirmity [be] unable to resort to the church for receiving of the holy Communion, or being sick shall declare to the pastor upon his conscience that he thinks his sickness to be deadly, and shall earnestly desire to receive the same in his house:
The minister shall not deny to him so great a comfort, lawful warning being given to him upon the night before, and that there be three or four [persons] of good religion and conversation, free of lawful impediments, present with the sick person to communicate with him, who must also provide a convenient place in his house and all things necessary for the reverend administration thereof, according to the order prescribed in the Church.”
.
Henry Hickman
Bonasus Vapulans [A Bull being Whipped], or, Some Castigations given to Mr. John Durel for Fouling Himself & Others in his English & Latin Book, by a Country Scholar (London, 1672), pp. 60-61 Hickman was an English puritan.
“…nor does the [Westminster] Directory [for the Public Worship of God] anywhere forbid the administering of the Communion unto those that are sick in private houses; though if it had so done, it might have justified itself by the example of many of the best Reformed Churches.
Let Mr. [John] Durel when he is at leisure, enquire whether one of the Assembly of divines did not administer the sacrament to captain Hotham when he was just going to be beheaded? or whether he was ever censured for so doing?”
.
Articles
On Calvin & the French Reformed Churches
Bingham, Joseph – ‘Communion of the Sick’, pp. 216-17 in The French Churches’ Apology for the Church of England: or the Objections of Dissenters against the Articles, Homilies, Liturgy & Cannons of the English Church, Considered & Answered upon the Principles of the Church of France (R. Knaplock, 1706), bk. 3, ch. 22
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – pp. ix-x in Introduction in A Review of the Book of Common Prayer Drawn up at the Request of Archbishop Cranmer, by Martin Bucer… Briefly Analyzed & Abridged by Arthur Roberts (London: Nisbet, 1853)
This is part of a translated excerpt of a letter from Martyr to Martin Bucer regarding Bucer’s review of the proposed, Anglican, Book of Common Prayer, which allowed for a Communion of a minister and three or four Christians with a sick person.
Cox, Richard – Letter 61, to Henry Bullinger (1552) in Original Letters relative to the English Reformation (Parker Soceity, 1846), pp. 123-4
Cox was an Anglican who had contention with John Knox over public worship / liturgy issues. He here gives a few reasons for Communion with three or four Christians.
Cotton, William – ch. 10, ‘Private Communion’ in The Second & Last Part of the Answer to the Reasons for Refusal of Subscription, pp. 65-78 in Reasons for Refusal of Subscription to the Book of Common Prayer under the hands of certain Ministers of Devon and Cornwall... as they were exhibited by them to the Right Reverend Father in God William Coton… with an Answer... (London, 1605)
Cotton (d. 1621) was the Anglican bshop of Exeter, and a doctor of divinity. He here defends the Book of Common Prayer.
“Can these men [dissenters]… prove in this sense we maintain a private Communion? These terms were never known to fit our church doctrine, till those first moniters and the heirs of their scruples… The Gentle Admonition [to the Parliament, 1572, by Cartwright and the presbyterians] that was the first bate for this idle debate, then rawly entered, since over hotly followed (but vainly, and unfruitfully God He knows, and we deplore) makes this an occasion of their lamentable separation.
Ye should first prove (say they) that the private communion is agreable to the Word of God. And is it not reason they should first prove that we enjoin a private communion, before they enjoin us to prove what they now reprove?” – p. 66
.
Latin Articles
1500’s
John Calvin – Excerpts: Epistles 184, 51, 361 & 363 appended to David Lindsay, A True Narration of All the Passages of the Proceedings in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland… 1618… together with a just defence of the Articles… against a Seditious Pamphlet [by Calderwood] (London, 1621), pp. 123-25
.
1700’s
Vitringa, Sr., Campegius – pp. 356-61 of ‘Of the Subject of the Sacred Supper’ in The Doctrine of the Christian Religion, Summarily Described through Aphorisms (d. 1722), vol. 8, ch. 24, ‘Of the Lord’s Supper’
.
.
Unclear
Quotes
French Reformed Churches
The Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France, ch. 12, ‘Of the Lord’s Supper’ (1559) in ed. John Quick, Synodicon in Gallia Reformata… (London, 1692), Introduction, p. xlvii
“Canon 1: Where there is no form of a Church, the Lord’s Supper shall not be administered.”
[The phrase ‘form of a Church’ was used by the French Reformed Churches of a small gathering of Christians with respect to baptism in a private house, and therefore it seems likely that in principle the French Reformed Churches allowed for such. However, the Romanist state did not allow any exercise of the reformed religion which was not public, in territories where such was allowed, and there are later testimonies of persons claiming that the French Reformed Churches did not practice a Communion for the sick. However, the French reformed generally followed in the train of Calvin and Geneva, and the civil stipulation did not prevent them from performing public baptism in a private house under certain constraining circumstances.]
.
William Bucanus
as quoted in Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics ed. Bizer & trans. Thomson (1950; Wipf & Stock, 2007), ch. 26, ‘The Lord’s Supper’, pp. 635-36
“In what place is (the H. Supper) to be administered? In public assembly, not to individuals privately or to those ill in bed at home or about to die without the congregation of the faithful and their participation. Communication should be ecclesiastical and public, not an idion deipnon [a private supper]. And the Supper is a symbol of the communion of saints…”
.
Trelcatius
A Brief Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinity… (London, 1610), ‘Of the Lord’s Supper’, pp. 373-74
“Secondly, the sick like[ly] to die [are excluded from the Supper]: for Christ would have this communion not to be private and domestical, but ecclesiastical, and public: neither does the want [lack], but the contempt of the same hurt the party that does not communicate…”
.
.
No
Quotes
David Calderwood
Perth Assembly… ([Leiden] 1619), pp. 100-101
“Some divines condescend thus far, that the communion may be sent to the sick in the time of the public action. But Tilenus says (Syntagma, pt. 2, p. 722):
“Whatsoever necessity be pretended, scarce any sufficient cause can be rendered wherefore the public action should pass in private, because the ordinance of God is of supreme necessity.”
The comforts of the infirm ministered out of order do rather foster the public infirmity of the Kirk, than heal the private infirmity of the sick.”
.
A Re-examination of the Five Articles enacted at Perth, anno 1618… (1636), ‘Of the Administration of the Sacraments in Private Places’, pp. 221-22, 224-25, 230-33
“In the [Scottish] Book of Common Order [‘The Order of Baptism’]… it is said that the sacraments are not ordained of God to be used in private corners, as charmers and sorcerers use[d] to do, but left to the congregation, and necessarily annexed to God’s Word as seals of the same. In the [general] assembly holden at Edinburgh… [Oct. 17,] 1581 [session 3], it was ordained that the sacraments be not ministered in private houses, but solemnly, according to the good order hitherto observed.
But in the late pretended assembly holden at Perth, anno 1618, it was ordained [in its Acts] that the minister shall not refuse to baptize infants in private houses when great need compels the parents to crave it, but the great need is not specified, and therefore left to the judgement of every corrupt minister who shall be willing to pleasure his parishoner upon pretence of any alleged necessity, as a rainy day, or the saving of some charges [expenses], as a dinner, etc. Such like the minister must not refuse to administrate the communion in a private house beside him… It is required only that there be three or four of good religion and conversation present to communicate with him. But, which shakes all loose, these must be free of all impediments. What if they be not free? What suppose there were forty, let be four, if it be not celebrated in the congregation, it is but a private communion.
…
2. …Because we cannot attain to a visible communion in the holy things of God immediately with the whole Church-militant, we enjoy it mediately by our communion in a particular congregation…
…
He [Dr. Lindsay] wrests also that place in Matthew [ch. 18], where Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three convened in his name, as if three or four convened to the administration of baptism or the Lord’s Supper, were a sufficient number to make up a lawful assembly… Christ speaks not there, as Master [Thomas] Cartwright has already answered, of the public administering of the Word and sacraments, but of the proceeding in the Church discipline.
…
It is a sinew of public assemblies, a hedge of our profession, a band of love and representation of our communion and fellowship, which is and ought to be among the members of the congregation. It is not a part, or two, or three, but the whole body of the congregation which is compared to one bread, when the apostle says, ‘We that are many are one bread, and one body, for we are partakers afore bread,’ 1 Cor. 10:17. Because it is not possible to us to celebrate a sacramental
union with the whole Church militant, the Lord has appointed us to keep a sacramentall communion with some particular congregation or visible Church.
…
A company convened apart from the rest to communicate with the sick person is not united by themselves into the body of a Church, far less three of four, as take, the English [Anglican] service book means to be a number sufficient, seeing they allow the communion to be ministred to three or four in the Church, and in the time of plague, sweat, or such other like contagious sicknesses, the minister may communicate with the person diseased alone… says Bullinger (Decade 5, sermon 9). That is, ‘Seeing it is not a public or general meeting, when three or four communicate with the sick, they say nothing to purpose who say, that the supper may be celebrated beside the sick, if others also communicate.’
…
The elements were sent to the absents in time, or immediately after the action in Justin Martyr’s time. Which was the first abuse we read of. After followed reservation of the eucharist for the use of the sick, which was a greater abuse, and carrying of it home to their houses. The opinion of the necessity of private communions did grow to such a height…”
.
John Ley
A Case of Conscience concerning the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper when either the Bread or Wine is Wanting, or when there is a Desire, yet with an Antipathy to Them, or Disability to Receive Them (London, 1641), pp. 20-21 Ley was an English presbyterian and Westminster divine.
“For such receiving in one kind only [upon necessity], I think he will resolve the rather, because though the Communion be a common union of the faithful with Christ and of Christians with one another, and so necessarily require a number to communicate with the minister, that except there be four or three (at the least) to join with him, there must be no communion, by the direction of the [Anglican service book] Rubric:
Yet (in case of necessity) the [Anglican] Church dispenses with the defect of that (indeed too) small number, and thus resolves in the Communion of the sick, in time of plague, sweat, or such other like contagious times of sickness, or diseases, when none of the parish or neighbors can be gotten, to communicate with the sick, in their houses (for fear of infection) upon special request of the diseased, the minister may be a lonely communicant with him: and as by a necessary defect of number, one minister (in this case) stands for three others, so by the like necessity, one element may stand for two: and this rather than that, because [the] whole Christ is present to the faithful in receiving either of the elements, but three laymen are not, nor can be present in one person, whether minister or any other.“
.
Cornelius Burges & Diverse Ministers
Reasons showing the Necessity of Reformation of the Public 1. Doctrine, 2. Worship, 3. Rites & Ceremonies, 4. Church-Government & Discipline, Reputed to be (but indeed, not) Established by Law (London, 1660), II. Of Worship, II. Of the Rubrics, pp. 25-26
“8. In the last rubric after Communion of the Sick, it is said:
‘In the time of the plague, sweat, or such other like contagious times of sicknesses or diseases, when none of the parish, or neighbors, can be gotten to communicate with the sick in their houses, for fear of the infection, upon special request of the diseased, the minister may only communicate with him.’
By this, the minister is bound not only to visit every person sick of the plague, etc. (standing at some distance) but, to administer the Lord’s Supper also to him, if he desire it; and that alone, if none else will join, as it is not to be expected they should. This is no way agreeable to Christianity, or common humanity.
Not to Christianity: for, first, the very nature of the sacrament requires a public administration, because there must be a Communion of more than two persons in the receiving of it. This appears plainly by several other rubrics of the same book. For:
1. in the first rubric after the public Communion, it is ordered, that, ‘if there be not above twenty persons in the parish, of discretion to receive the Communion, yet there shall be no Communion, except four, or three at the least communicate with the priest.’ If it be said, this is the order for public Communions; but, it concerns not private Communions of the sick: it is answered, 1. that it appears not by the Word, that there is any warrant, much less necessity for such private Communions: for, the first rubric after Communion of the sick, directs the minister thus:
‘If a man, either by extremity of sickness, or for want of warning in due time to the curate, or for lack of company to receive with him, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood; then the curate shall instruct him, that if he do truly repent of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed his Blood for his Redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he has thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefore’ (without all which, what good will be get by receiving the sacrament?) ‘he does eat and drink the body and blood of our Savior Christ profitably to his soul’s health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth.’
2. In the rubric before the Communion of the sick, this order is given, that the curate having ‘knowledge overnight, or early in the morning,’ of the desire of the sick person to receive the Communion, and being signified
‘also how many be appointed to communicate with him, and having a convenient place in the sick man’s house, where the curate may reverently minister, and a good number to receive the Communion with the sick person, with all things necessary for the same, he shall there minister the holy Communion.’
Therefore by these rubrics, no Communion is to be ministered to the sick, where there be but two to receive it.
Secondly, this is also no way agreeable to humanity. Must a minister, who has the charge of many souls, adventure his health, and life, to gratify an infectious person in that which (as by what has been before alleged) is no way of necessity to the sick man’s salvation? Must the minister do this, or be punished with deprivation, or otherwise? What cruelty is this? Nay, the very Canons of 1603, Canon 67, provided more mercifully than so; which runs thus:
‘When any person is dangerously sick in any parish, the minister or curate (having knowledge thereof) shall resort to him or her, (if the disease be not known, or probably suspected to be infectious) to instruct and comfort them,’ etc.
Here is a dispensation in case of the plague, or other infectious disease, for so much as visiting the sick: and no word at all of giving the Holy Communion. So much shall at present suffice to be spoken of the rubrics.”
.
Leonard Rijssen
A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary trans. J. Wesley White MTh thesis (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), ch. 17, ‘The Sacraments’, p. 238
“Controversy 11 – Should the holy Supper for convenience be celebrated by the sick in private dwellings? We deny against the Lutherans.
Arguments:
1. Christ only administered the Supper in the assembly of the disciples.
2. Paul wanted us to gather together and to wait on one another (1 Cor. 11:33).
3. The Supper seals communion of many with Christ, because all are partakers of the one bread.
Objections:
1. Christ performed it in private houses. Reply: But the Church gathered there.
2. The sick need the confirmation of their faith. Reply: From the Word of God, and they can have that confirmation from a Supper they have taken previously.
Controversy 12 – Should the leftover bread and wine from the holy Supper be kept in vases or containers to be solemnly carried around to the sick and for other similar uses? We deny against the Papists.
Arguments:
1. The water of baptism cannot be carried around this way, for many were baptized in a river (Acts 8:38); therefore, the bread of the Supper should not be either.
2. It is only a sacrament when it is used, and it has no greater sanctity outside of that use than any other bread.
3. There is no example or institution of it in the Word of God.
Objections:
1. It is the body of Christ. Reply: No. The body of Christ is not bread.
2. It is the cup of the New Testament. Reply: Insofar as it is a sign and seal of it.”
.
Articles
On the Genevan & French Reformed Churches
Bingham, Joseph – ‘Communion of the Sick’ in Joseph Bingham, The French Churches’ Apology for the Church of England: or the Objections of Dissenters against the Articles, Homilies, Liturgy & Cannons of the English Church, Considered & Answered upon the Principles of the Church of France (R. Knaplock, 1706), bk. 3, ch. 22
On the German Reformed Church
p. 23 of The Lutheran Liturgy: now used by the Protestants in the Reformed Churches of Germany, Proved to Agree with the Rites… of the Book of Common-Prayer, used by the Church of England 2nd ed. (London: J. Morphew, 1715)
By the author not citing the German Reformed Church in his paragraph regarding Communion for the sick, it would appear that the German Reformed Church did not practice it.
.
.
.
“…they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb… And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.”
Ex. 12:3-7
“The Master saith, ‘Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?’ And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.”
Mark 14:14-15
“And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”
Acts 16:33-34
.
.
.
Related Pages
On the Administration of the Sacraments in Extra-Ordinary Circumstances
On Extraordinary Acts of Church Government under Necessity, Superintendents & Assessor Elders, etc.
Local Church Membership is Not Necessary to Partake of the Sacraments
The Baptism of the Children of Adherents
The Administration of the Supper
Frequency of the Lord’s Supper