common forms. Such were the prevailing sentiments of the ablest Divines and casuists in those ancient times; as will appear more fully, when I come to give a brief detail of their resolutions in this article, which I shall do presently. But I may first take notice, for the clearer conception of the whole case, that since it is allowed on all hands, that there can be no just bar to frequency of Communion, but the want of preparation, which is only such a bar as men may themselves remove if they please, it concerns them highly to take off the impediment, as soon as possible, and not to trust to vain hopes of alleviating one fault by another. It was required under the Law, that a man should come holy and clean, and well prepared m to the Passover: but yet his neglecting to be clean (when he might be clean) was never allowed as a just apology for his staying away. No: the absenting in that case was an offence great enough to deserve the being cut off from God's people", because it amounted to a disesteeming, and, in effect, disowning God's covenant. The danger of misperforming any religious duty is an argument for fear and caution, but no excuse for neglect: God insists upon the doing it, and the doing it well also. The proper duty of the high priest, under the Law, was a very dangerous employ, requiring the exactest care and profoundest reverence: nevertheless, there was no declining the service; neither was the exactness of the preparation or qualifications any proper excuse to be pleaded for non-performance. It was no sufficient plea for the slothful servant, under the Gospel, that he thought his Master hard to please, and thereupon neglected his bounden duty P: for the use he ought to have made of that thought was, to 'I Vid. Isidor. Pelusiot. lib. iii. ep. 364. p. 398, alias 345. m 2 Chron. xxx. 1, &c. xxxv. 3-6, &c. ■ Exod. xii. 15, 19. Numb. ix. 13. • Levit. xvi. 13. Conf. Deyling. Observ. Sacr. tom. ii. n. 41. p. 493. tom. iii. n. 46. p. 454, &c. P Matt. xxv. 24, &c. Luke xix. 20, &c. have been so much the more wakeful and diligent in his Master's service. Therefore, in the case of the holy Communion, it is to very little purpose to plead the strictness of the self-examination, or preparation, by way of excuse either for a total, or for a frequent, or for a long neglect of it. A man may say, that he comes not to the table, because he is not prepared, and so far he assigns a good reason: but if he should be farther asked, why he is not prepared, when he may; there he can only make some trifling, insufficient excuse, or remain speechless. But for the farther clearing of this important article of frequent Communion, it may be proper to trace the judg ment and practice of the churches of Christ from the beginning, and downwards through six or eight centuries; which I shall endeavour to do in as plain and few words, as the nature of the subject will admit of. Century the First. In the days of the Apostles, Communions were frequent; either every day, or at least every Lord's day. Some have probably enough collected from the history of the Acts, that at Jerusalem, the mother church, there was a daily Communion 9, and that in other churches the custom was to have weekly Communions at least, that is to say, upon the Lord's day. But all must be understood of persons fitly prepared, to appearance at least: for it is certain, that open fornicators, extortioners, idolaters, and the like, were not admitted to Communion. Christians were not allowed to keep company with such delinquents, no not to eat common meals s; much less to communicate. St. Paul gave orders for excommunicating the incestuous Corinthian; and he admitted him not again, till after a very serious and solemn repentance, after his being almost swallowed up of grief". However, it is observable, that both his exclusion and his readmission were within the a Acts ii. 42, 46. 1 Cor. v. 11, 12. Compare 2 John 10. u 2 Cor. ii. 6, 7. r Acts xx. 7. 1 Cor. v. 5, 13. compass of a twelvemonth: for St. Paul's two Epistles to Corinth are judged to bear date the same year, namely, A. D. 57. Such are the apostolical precedents for frequent Communion if prepared, and for abstaining if not prepared. Century the Second. In the next century we have undoubted evidences of weekly Communions, and particularly on the Lord's day. This is justly collected from the testimony of the younger Pliny above cited *, and is plainly declared by Justin Martyry, of the same century. None but true believers and men of good lives were permitted to receive, as I before observed from the same excellent writer: so that frequency of communicating was never urged in derogation of the preparatory requisites, or to make any abatement in them. As to public and scandalous offences, in faith or manners, those the Church could see, and provide against, by debarring the offenders from Communion: and as to secret impediments, they took what care they could, by permitting or exhorting such as might be conscious of their own unfitness, to forbear coming to the altar. There is a remarkable passage to this purpose, in a learned writer of the second century, which runs thus: "Some, "after the customary division of the elements, leave it "upon the consciences of their people, either to take their "part, or otherwise. For the best rule to determine them "in their participation or forbearance, is their own con"science: and the surest foundation for conscience to pro"ceed upon is a good life, joined with a competent mea"sure of proficiency in Christian knowledge. And the "best method of coming at the knowledge of the truth, "and a right performance of what is commanded, is to "choose for your direction persons of most approved faith * See above, chap. i. p. 32. * Τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ, κ. τ. λ. Just. Mart, Apol, i. p. 97. z See above, chap. xiii. p. 395. "and conduct. For whosoever shall eat this bread and "drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty "of the body and blood of the Lord: but let a man ex"amine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and "drink of the cupa." Thus far Clemens. And from thence we may observe, that there was yet no standing rule or Canon of the Church, obliging all the faithful to receive as often as they met for Divine Service; but Christians were left at liberty to judge how far they were fitly qualified in knowledge, or in godly living: only, it was supposed, that they ought to be fitly qualified; and if they were, to receive. Tertullian, who lived in the close of the same century, takes notice of some who declined receiving, upon the stationary days, (Wednesdays and Fridays,) for fear of breaking their fast b. He blames them for their foolish scruple, and suggests to them a better way, whereby they might keep both their fast and their feast. I may observe from it, that he thought it a duty incumbent upon all the faithful, to communicate as often as they might; but the Church had not yet enforced the duty with any Canons, obliging them under pain of ecclesiastical censure to receive for, had that been the case, Tertullian, probably, would have mentioned it; or rather, there would scarce have been room left either for their scruples on one hand, or for his charitable advice on the other. However, from hence perhaps we may date the first beginnings of that coldness and backwardness in point of frequent Communion, which grew up apace amongst Christians afterwards: it is not certain that those persons were sincere in their pretended scruples; but they might be willing to shift off the duty as decently as they could, under the fairest colours. a Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 318. b Tertullian. de Orat. cap. xiv. p. 136. Century the Third. St. Cyprian, who flourished about the middle of the third century, mentions daily Communions, as the common practice of that time: and he every where speaks highly of the use and benefit of the Sacrament to the worthy receivers: but no man could be more careful to prevent any one's coming to the Lord's table, who had committed any of the grievous sins, and had not yet made full satisfaction to God and the world, by a strict and solemn repentance. In this century crept in some superstitious or overcurious conceits about legal defilements, as a bar to Communion, or even to coming to the Christian assemblies. Such niceties, while they carried a show of reverence for holy places and things, might notwithstanding have better been let alone; having no warrant in the Gospel of Christ, nor in the practice of the earlier ages of the Church, so far as appears: neither indeed were they altogether consistent with the ancient custom of daily Communions of all the faithful, which had obtained in some churches. One thing is observable, that during the first three centuries, we meet with no Canons made to enforce frequent Communion, scarce so much as exhortations to it, or any complaints of neglect in that article: which is an argument that Christians in those times were not tardy in that respect, but rather forward and pressing, under an high notion of the privilege and comfort of partaking of the holy Communion. Therefore the chief care and concern of Church guides, during the first ages, was rather to inculcate the necessity of due preparation, than to insist upon frequency, for which there was less occasion. But times and circumstances soon came to be altered; as we shall see presently, upon taking a view of the following centuries. See the whole passage above, chap. vi. p. 123, 124. d Vid. Canones Dionys. Alexandrin. Harduin. tom. i. p. 187, &c. Bevereg. Pandect. tom. ii. p. 4, &c. |