Necessity of Receiving Holy Communion with a Resolution of Doubts, Discourse 2
Diſcourſe II. THE FREQUENCY OF Holy Communion.
HAving demonſtrated in the foregoing Diſcourſe, that it is a duty indiſpenſably lying upon all Chriſtians, to receive the holy Sacrament of Chriſts Body and Blood; a duty of great weight and importance; for the neglect of which I do not ſee, how we can atone, by the performance of any other duty whatſoever: I proceed to ſhow,that it is a duty which ought to be frequently repeated; for as oft as ye eat this Bread (ſaith the Apoſtle) and drink this Cup, ye do ſhow the Lords Death till he come. Which plainly inſinuates, that they did this often: and that it was their duty ſo to do, ſhall be the ſubject of this preſent Diſcourſe.
And here now, in the very entrance of it, I muſt acknowledge, that we are not told either in this place of Scripture, or any other, how often we ought to Communicate, or how frequently the Church ought to make this Commemoration of Chriſts Death and Paſſion for our ſake.
Of which obſervation men now make a very bad and prepoſterous uſe. For, finding that our Lord hath only ſaid, This do, in remembrance of me, but no where ſaid, when, at what time, or times, it is to be done, they imaginethat they ſatisfy his will; if they do not wholly withdraw themſelves from his Table, though they come never ſo ſeldom thither.
And truly, by this ſort of reaſoning, that becauſe we are no where told how often we ſhould do this, we need only take care to do it ſometime or other; it may be thought ſufficient, if we do it but once in our whole life. And ſo dangerous are ſuch conceits, which men frame to themſelves from ſuch Obſervations, that vaſt numbers (though otherwiſe not wicked) live in a conſtant neglect of this Duty, till they come to die: and then, upon their Death-Beds calling for this Sacrament and receiving it, they think they have fulfilled the will of our Lord, in doing this, as he hath commanded; becauſe, though he hath commanded it to be done, he hath no where commanded when, or how oft it ſhould be done.
From whence we may certainly conclude that this is a falſe conſequence, which men draw from the ſilence of the holy Scriptures in this matter: becauſe it is ſo dangerous and pernitious, that, in a manner, it quite deſtroys our Religion; by taking away this part of it, which is the principal; and making it unneceſſary as long as a man lives, ſo he be but ſure to receive when he is at the point of Death.
Of that indeed no man can be aſſured: but ſuppoſing he doth receive the Communion at the very laſt gaſp, he is thus far ſafe and not guilty of the breach of this Commandment, if this conſequence be true: that becauſe our Saviour hath no where appointed the time, or ſaid how frequentlywe ſhould do this in remembrance of him, we do comply with his Inſtitution, provided we do it ſometime or other.
Now to deſtroy this falſe notion, from whence ſuch abſurdities flow, I ſhall in the firſt place ſhow you; that the quite contrary, naturally and neceſſarily follows from this obſervation, of our Saviours appointing no time, for the performance of that which he required to be done in remembrance of him.
From whence mens wicked hearts draw this concluſion, as I have ſaid, that it may ſuffice to do this now and then, though never ſo ſeldom.
I.
But the true, the genuine, and honeſt concluſion which follows from thence is this: that ourLord having named no fixed ſetled time or times for the performance of this holy action, it is an argument that he deſigned and appointed it as a conſtant, common, and ordinary part of the Chriſtian Service, which he would have performed in his Church at all times.
Let thoſe words of Chriſt, this do in remembrance of me, be well weighed, and there is no man can infer leſs from thence, than that if he had intended this ſhould be done only at ſome ſuch great and ſolemn times, as the Paſsover was among the Jews (when he firſt inſtituted this Feaſt, and eat it with his Diſciples) he would not have ſuffered us to be ignorant of his meaning, but told us in plain terms, that upon ſome certain days, and at ſome extraordinary Aſſemblies, this ſhould not be forgotten: Butthat he having named no time whatſoever, we ought to look upon his words, as inſtituting this holy action to be a part of that Worſhip, Honour and Service, which he expected from his people in all their Religious Aſſemblies.
For being ordained in remembrance of him, it is moſt reaſonable to think he intended this Commemoration ſhould be as conſtantly made, as they met together to acknowledge him for their Lord and Saviour, and only Mediator with God the Father.
And being a Commemoration ordained inſtead of all the Sacrifices, whereby, under the Law, they daily implored the mercies of God, or gave thanks for them; it ought, in all Conſcience, to be as continual a rite of Religious Worſhip as thoſe Sacrifices were.
And thus, when men had upright hearts, and unbiaſſed affections, they did honeſtly underſtand our Saviours meaning; and accordingly made this a conſtant part of their Divine Service: Which is the next thing I would deſire you to obſerve. For I would not have you to rely merely on my reaſonings and inferences (though I verily think this would appear, a true way of arguing, and a right concluſion unto any unprejudiced mind, if we had no more to juſtify it) but as a further evidence of this; nay, as a full conviction that we ought ſo to take it, I beſeech you ſeriouſly to conſider; that
II.
Thus the Apoſtles and the firſt Chriſtians underſtood the meaning of our bleſſed Saviour in thisInſtitution. And can we have any better Expoſitors of his words, any ſurer directors of our practice, than ſuch great Servants of his, who were filled with the Holy Ghoſt? Who never met together to worſhip God, and our Saviour; but this was a part, and a principal part too, of the ſervice they performed in thoſe Aſſemblies. If I can make this good, the other will follow: for there can no other account be given, why they did this as conſtantly as they aſſembled themſelves for Divine Service; but becauſe they took that to be our Saviours meaning and intention, when he ſaid, This do, in remembrance of me.
Now there is nothing more apparent in the holy ſtory, than this, that the Apoſtles, and thoſe whom they first converted, made this a daily part of the offices of Religion. For we read that when three thouſand Souls joined themſelves to the Church upon the day of Pentecoſt, they continued ſtedfaſtly in the Apoſtles Doctrine, and fellowſhip, and breaking of Bread, and Prayers. Act. ii. 42. Where breaking of Bread, I proved before, ſignifies their receiving the Euchariſt; and now obſerve, that the words we tranſlate continued ſtedfaſtly (which in the Greek are foreign) ſignify, that they were conſtant and aſſiduous in this holy action. For the word imports frequency, as appears from other places; particularly from Rom. xii. 12. Where there is the ſame word in the Apoſtles Command for Prayer; and we tranſlate it, continuing inſtant in Prayer. And Coloſſ. iv. 2. it is joined with watching thereunto with thanksgiving. From which Obſervations we gain this; that as frequent and inſtant as they were in Prayer, ſo frequent and inſtant they were in breaking of Bread: for they were foreign, conſtant and unwearied in them, both alike.
Now what this conſtancy or frequency was, is expounded in the 46. verſe: where St. Luke ſaith, they continued (the ſame word again) daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking Bread from houſe to houſe, or at home; as the word is better tranſlated in the Margin of our Bibles. Where we ſee that breaking of Bread at home, in their own private Houſes, was as daily, as their going to the Temple publickly: and can be meant of nothing, but their receiving the holy Communion every day. For no man can ſo much as imagine a reaſon, why breaking of Bread ſhould be mentioned as their daily practice athome, together with their reſort to the Temple ſervice abroad: but to ſignify that they communicated among themſelves, in the ſervice of the Euchariſt or Holy Communion, proper to the Faith of Chriſtians; as they communicated with the Jews in the ſervice of the Temple, common to all the Diſciples of Moſes.
You may impute this, it is poſſible, to the warmth of their zeal: but remember withal, that this zeal was grounded upon knowledge; which they wanted not in thoſe dayes. And the knowledge they had of Chriſtian Religion taught them; that when our bleſſed Saviour commanded them to do this, in remembrance of him, naming no time when it ſhould be done, he meant it ſhould be done always in their Chriſtian Aſſemblies: as the perfection and Crown of that Service, for which they Aſſembled.
III.
And indeed, if we had not had theſe records of the practice of the Apoſtles, and of the firſt Chriſtians, to explain the meaning of our Saviours Inſtitution; yet we ſhould have had reaſon to think it was ſo in the Apoſtles days (and therefore the meaning of our Saviour) becauſe this practice of receiving the holy Communion every Day, continued in the Church for ſome Ages. I cannot ſay, in every place (for we have no Records of that, but rather of the contrary) but in many places, and in the moſt famous that are come to our notice; and where the vigour of Chriſtian Religion remained; and where they were awakened, by more than ordinary dangers, to conſider their obligation.
Thus we find St. Cyprian in his Expoſition of the Lords Prayer, takes that Petition, give us this day our daily Bread; to ſignify, in the ſpiritual ſenſe, our deſire to be fit to receive the Euchariſt every day, for the food of Salvation. And in his Epiſtle to the Church of Thibaris, ſpeaking of a more grievous and fiercer fight of perſecution hanging then over their heads, he tell them, therefore the Souldiers of Jeſus Chriſt ought to fortify and arm themſelves well againſt it, with an uncorrupt Faith, and robuſt Vertue; conſidering that they did for this end quotidie calicem Christi ſanguinis bibere, &c. every day drink the Cup of Chriſts blood, that they might alſo be able to ſhed their own blood for Chriſts ſake. In which words he addreſſes his Diſcourſe to the Laicks, as well as the Clergy: exhortingall the faithful unto the conſtancy of Martyrdom; which Men, Women and Children indured.
Nay, long after this, we learn from St. Hierom (in his Apology to Pammachius for his Books againſt Jovinian, and other places) that this Cuſtom continued at Rome, and in Spain; as well as in Africk: where St. Auſtin tell us (in his famous Epiſtle to Januarius) that in his time, ſome did quotidie communicare, &c. daily communicate of the body and blood of our Lord; though others, he acknowledges, did it only on certain days. St. Baſil alſo begins his Epiſtle to Caeſaria Patritia in this manner; to communicate every day, and partake of the holy body and blood of our Lord Chriſt, foreign, is a commendable and profitable thing: and then adds, that they did communicate four times a Week in his Church, on the Lords day, Wedneſday, Friday, and the Sabbath, that is Saturday; and on other dayes, if the memory of any Martyr fell upon them.
Nay, three or four Ages more after this, ſuch a ſenſe of this Devotion remained, that Walafridus Strabo (in his Book of Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, c. 20.) ſayes, it ſeems to be very full of reaſon, that Chriſtians, eſpecially Clergymen, ſhould every day be imployed in divine Offices; and, when ſome very grievous ſpot of mind or body doth not hinder, receive the Lords Bread and Blood, without which we cannot live: imitating the wholſome diligence of the primitive Church; concerning whom we read in the Acts of the Apoſtles, that they perſevered in the Apoſtles Doctrine and Fellowſhip, and in breaking of Bread and Prayers: and a little after, they continued daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking Bread from Houſe to Houſe &c. quoting the words I named before.
All which, and much more that might be ſaid, make it apparent, that the Church in the beſt times, and the beſt men in the Church, in after Ages, lookt upon this as an ordinary part of Chriſtian Worſhip: which Chriſt intended ſhould be performed in his Church, as oft as they Aſſembled for Divine Service. And what other ground could they have for it, but this; that Chriſt having confined it to no time, they thought, in reaſon, it ſhould be taken for a duty he expected from them at all times, when they came to worſhip him, and make their thankful acknowledgments unto him.
IV.
And truly, we can gather no leſs from the very nature of this holy action; which ſufficiently ſhows it was our Saviours meaning, that it ſhould be a daily part of the Churches Service. It being, as all know, a ſolemn Thankſgiving unto God, and a Form of Prayer and Petitioning (which every one confeſſes are acts of Worſhip to be conſtantly performed) and alſo a commemoration of that upon which the efficacy of all our Prayers and Thankſgivings depends, viz. the Sacrifice of Chriſt upon the Croſs: which is here likewiſe repreſented unto God, as that which appearing always before him in the Heavens, intercedes for us, and makes all our Sacrifices acceptable to his Majeſty.
And beſides all this, is the peculiar worſhip which the Church gives unto Chriſt, as a grateful acknowledgment of his unparallel'd love, in laying down his life for us, to purchaſe the moſt ineſtimable benefits; which he herein alſo aſſures unto us, and beſtows upon us. Which is in part declared in theſe words, upon which I have built my Diſcourſe, wherein we are told the end of this holy Sacrament is, to ſhow or publiſh the Lords Death: that is, ſhow it with praiſe; predicate, extol and magnify (as the word foreign imports) proclaim with our higheſt praiſes, the loving kindneſs of the Lord; in the glorious work of our Redemption, through his moſt pretious blood. But is more fully declared in the very words of the Inſtitution, when he ſaid, Do this in remembrance of me: which ſhowthat our doing this, is the peculiar honour, we do our bleſſed Lord; by making a publick commemoration that he took our nature upon him, that he died for us, that he obtained thereby a glorious Victory over all our Enemies; that he purchaſed for himſelf and for us immortal glory; and is now at Gods right hand, in full power to beſtow it upon us. In memory of all theſe things, ſaith our Saviour, do this; that when I am dead, I may always live in your hearts; and the knowledge of all theſe things, may go down to all poſterity; and be commemorated from one Generation unto another for ever, with thankful praiſes: but eſpecially the memory of my Death may be tranſmitted to them; and be celebrated with continual acknowledgments.
For it was but fit that he ſhouldbe publickly honoured in that, which when he ſuffered, expoſed him to the greateſt contempt. And no doubt it was the deſign of God in appointing this Rite of holy worſhip, to have his Death commemorated with Everlaſting praiſes, which, for the preſent, had brought him into the utmoſt diſgrace. To which purpoſe is that paſſage, in an Eaſter Sermon, aſcribed to Caeſarius Biſhop of Arles: becauſe he intended to remove out of our ſight the body which he had taken, and to place it in Heaven; it was neceſſary that in the ſame day, he ſhould conſecrate for us the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, to the end, that we ſhould honour by the type, that which had been once offered for the price of our Salvation.
In ſhort this is the proper worſhip of God Incarnate, and of our Crucified Saviour: and therefore cannot be thought by wiſe conſiderers, to have been intended to be left unto uncertainty, whether we would perform it or no, or when we would be pleaſed to perform it: but to have been ordained as a daily Service, which ſhould be continually performed unto Chriſt.
Which, in truth, the continual neceſſities of the Church require: it being the principal Act whereby we have Communion with Chriſt; and partake of the Sacrifice he made on the Croſs. We are united unto him, as Members of his Body, in the other Sacrament of Baptiſm; wherein alſo his holy Spirit is beſtowed upon us, as a principle of life and motion ſutable to our Religion: which directs us unto this Sacrament as the chief outward viſible means of preſervingour Union with Chriſt, by having conſtant Communion with him, and with his holy ſpirit. Whoſe influences he here communicates unto us, for our growth and increaſe in ſpiritual life and holineſs: and we therefore, in reaſon, ſhould be deſirous conſtantly to receive, becauſe we conſtantly want them; and are too apt to ſtart aſide from him, unto whom we ought to keep our ſelves ſtedfaſtly united, by Faith, and Love, and uniform univerſal Obedience.
Put now all this together, that it is an act of holy worſhip; a worſhip altogether as peculiar to the Church, as the Sacrifice on the Croſs is peculiar to Chriſtianity; the only worſhip wherewith we honour our bleſſed Lord and Saviour; a Commemoration, nay, a repreſentation of that which makes all our Services acceptable unto God; and the principal way and means whereby we have Communion with Chriſt; from whom we ſtand in continual need of the Communication of his grace: and we ſhall ſoon be ſatisfied, that the plaineſt, and moſt reaſonable anſwer that can be given to thoſe, who ask, how often did Chriſt intend we ſhould eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup, is this; as often as we aſſemble publickly to worſhip God our Saviour. For there is no worſhip peculiar to him but this; nor is there any, wherein we have ſuch Communion with him, as in this: by which we do truly and indeed participate of the Sacrifice offered unto God upon the Croſs, as the Jews and the Gentiles did of their Sacrifices offered up on their Altars.
Thus the Apoſtle diſcourſes atlarge in the Chapter before my Text, 1 Cor. x. 16, 17. &c. where he takes it for an undeniable truth, that Chriſtians do communicate with God their Saviour, in the merits of his Death, by receiving the holy Euchariſt. And thence proves it to be unlawful for them to partake of the Gentile Sacrifices; by proving that to eat of their Sacrifices was to be acceſſory to their Idolatries: as the Jews by eating of ſuch Sacrifices as were offered among them, did partake of the Altar (or did communicate with the Altar) that is, Communicate with God, whoſe Altar that was upon which the Sacrifices were conſumed. Which evidently ſuppoſes that Chriſtians alſo did in the Euchariſt, partake of a Sacrifice, and were thereby joined to Chriſt, who was that Sacrifice. Which though carried by him into the moſt holy place of the Heavens, there to be preſented unto God, is no leſs participated by Chriſtians, in this holy Feaſt of the Euchariſt, than the Jews did participate of their offerings of thankſgiving on the Altar.
I know very well, it will be objected, that by underſtanding our Saviours meaning in this Inſtitution after this manner, we prove a great deal too much; and argue our publick ſervice to be defective; when it wants this peculiar worſhip of Chriſt, which he ordained.
To which I ſhall only ſay this, that if by diſcourſing thus, we prove no more than is true; our worſhip muſt be confeſſed to be but imperfect, when the Holy Communion is wanting: not ſo perfect, at leaſt, as that of the ancient Chriſtians was. Which we had much better honeſtly acknowledge,and beſeech God to accept for Chriſts ſake, of ſuch ſervices as we do perform, though, in ſome regard, and in compariſon, imperfect ones: than, by going about to defend untruths and eſtabliſh falſe notions in Religion, to make our ſelves more guilty before God.
I know alſo it will be urged againſt what I have ſaid; that ſurely it is ſufficient, if we every day pray to God in Chriſts name, and for his ſake deſire our Prayers may find a gracious Audience; praiſing him alſo, as our Saviour and Redeemer and Interceſſor at Gods right hand: though we do not uſe theſe viſible ſigns, which he hath appointed.
But, if this be intirely ſufficient, ſo that our Chriſtian worſhip may be juſtly thought intire, compleat, and perfect, without doing this in remembrance of Chriſt: then for what end was it inſtituted by him? Why did he appoint it, if our worſhip be compleat without it? Then it is as needleſs and ſuperfluous an addition to the Chriſtian Service, as we ſeem now, by our intire neglect of it or ſeldom performance, to imagine it to be.
Which, ſince no Chriſtian dare ſay, becauſe it diſparages the wiſdom of our Saviour in appointing it, if all be perfect without it; we muſt therefore, to our ſhame, take the other courſe, and ſay; that we are faln into a ſtate of imperfection, but hope our leſs perfect ſervices will be accepted, by vertue of that moſt perfect Sacrifice of Chriſt, which we commemorate publickly, as oft as we are able.
V.
And that might very well be oftner, than we do commemorate it; for I ſhall now proceed to tell you (as an Introduction to the account I am about to give, how the Service of the Church came to be ſo defective) that when Chriſtian people grew leſs devout, yet ſtill they did not fail to perform this peculiar ſervice to Chriſt, every Lords Day, and Holy Day, at the leaſt: that is, on thoſe days of the Week, as you heard out of St. Baſil, when the memory of any Martyr was celebrated. Which in time becoming the practice of many Churches, made an ancient Writer about Divine Offices (mentioned by Caſſander in his Book of Liturgies) affirm, that men imployed in ſecular buſineſſes, received the Communion, even in the primitive times, only on the Lords Days and other Feſtivals: interpreting, as many think, the practice of the moſt antient times,by the Cuſtoms of his own.
It is poſſible indeed that he had a better reaſon for what he affirmed; becauſe we find ſomething in Scripture to countenance this opinion, that very early ſome Chriſtians did content themſelves with ſo doing. For in Acts xx. 7. we read, that at Troas upon the first day of the week, when the Diſciples came together to break Bread (i. e. to receive the Euchariſt) Paul preached unto them, &c. From whence it ſhould ſeem (ſaith our learned Mr. Thorndike) that in this Church at Troas the Euchariſt was celebrated, even in the times of the Apoſtles, not every day as it was at Jeruſalem, but only on the Lords Day.
For the firſt day of the Week being mentioned as the time, when they came together to break Bread, it ſeems, ſaith he, to ſtand againſt the reſt in termsof difference; as if upon other days they did it not.
And thus much I believe is certain, that when the Church was multiplied, all Chriſtians could not meet together every day: but ſome one day, ſome another; and all on the Lords Day. Which being the principal day, it came to paſs in proceſs of time, that it was the only day of the Week when they celebrated the Euchariſt: but on that day none omitted it, no more than they did the reſt of the Chriſtian Service. And thus, it ſeems to me moſt reaſonable to underſtand the matter here at Troas: where they did not omit the Communion on other days (for I cannot perſwade my ſelf, but that they were conformable to the Mother Church of Jeruſalem) but ſuch as could aſſemble themſelves, and attend upon Divine Service daily'did receive it; and on the Lords Day all the Chriſtians in the City came together for that purpoſe; and whatſoever buſineſs they had, which hindered them on other dayes, it did not hinder them on this: but they all came to do their duty to their Saviour, and make a publick Commemoration of his love.
And in this they were ſo ſtrict for a long time, and it was accounted ſo great a fault to be abſent, that if any perſons were found not to have Communicated for three Sundays together, they were to be Excommunicated, and ſeparated from the Society of the Church, by the Canons of three ſeveral Synods mentioned by Zonaras upon the eleventh Canon of the Apoſtles: which orders them to be caſt out, as an offence to the Church, who entred into the Church and heard the holy Scriptures,but did not ſtay for the Prayers, nor receive the Holy Communion. Which was thought ſo neceſſary, that the Deacon who before the Communion (as you ſhall hear anon out of St. Chryſoſtom) cryed, all you who are under penance, you who cannot pray (i. e. with the faithful) go out; is appointed by the Conſtitutions called Apoſtolical, to ſtand with the Sub-Deacon, at the Door of the Church, and hinder all the reſt, who were not under Pennance (and ſo bound to Communicate) that they ſhould not go out till they had received the holy Sacrament.
And unto this pitch of perfection, if not higher, our firſt Reformers deſired to bring the Service of the Church. I ſay, if not higher, becauſe in the firſt Communion Book of Edward VI. there is a Rubrick which ſuppoſeth daily Communion, not only in Cathedrals but in other places: as there is another which takes care the people ſhould be admoniſhed and quickned; when they are negligent to come to the Communion upon the Sunday, or Holy-Day. Which ſhows (as the learned perſon above-mentioned obſerves) that they affected the frequentation of this Service, according to the primitive pattern; ſo far as they thought it attainable: deſiring that even upon other Holy Days, as well as Sundays, it ſhould be celebrated; in the Mother Churches, at leaſt, as patterns and examples unto the reſt. And thus much Mr. Calvin himſelf roundly declares (after he had commended the ancient cuſtom of communicating daily, and condemned the cuſtom of communicating only once a Year, as a Diabolical invention) that the Table of the Lord ought to beprepared for Chriſtian people, at leaſt, once a Week: and that all ſhould be exhorted and ſtimulated (and the ſlothful chidden) to flock, as hungry people, unto ſuch a Banquet: As his words are in his IV. Book of Inſtitutions C. xvii. n. 46.
And ſo it is ſtill enjoined, in one of our Rubricks, that in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, and Colledges, where there are many Prieſts and Deacons, they ſhall receive the Communion every Sunday, at leaſt, except they have a reaſonable cauſe to the contrary. Now nothing, you have heard, was thought a reaſonable cauſe in ancient time to keep any of the people from the Communion, except ſuch ſins as threw them into the number of the Penitents: For none of the reſt were ſuffered to go out of the Church, but ſtayed to receive it. Nay, ſuch wasthe devout affection of the primitive Chriſtians, while they remained one heart, and one Soul, that they never celebrated the Communion (as we learn from Juſtin Martyr his firſt Apology) but they ſent it to thoſe Believers who were abſent (particularly to thoſe whoſe bodily infirmities kept them from the publick Aſſemblies) that they might have Communion with the Church; and it might appear, by their partaking of the ſame Bread, that they were one Body, with thoſe who were preſent.
And here let me briefly tell you, that this Rubrick or Rule, ought in reaſon to be the rather obſerved (as it will hereafter in this and other Cathedrals) that the people who live near, or come, upon occaſion, thither, may have frequent opportunity to Communicate with the MotherChurch. Where anciently Chriſtians were very deſirous to receive this holy Sacrament, as oft as they could; that they might teſtify there was but Ʋnum Altare, one Altar, as they called it, one Chriſtian Society and Communion; unto which they all belonged, and with whom they were in Union: Particular Pariſhes in the Dioceſs, being not diſtinct Churches, but parts and Members of one Church, which is the Mother Church, from whence they all, in ancient time, did originally ſpring.
For ſo we find in the Monuments of the Church, that a Biſhop and his Clergy having made Converſions in ſome conſiderable part of a Country, there they ſeated themſelves, and from thence ſpread the Goſpel into neighbour places; who all lookt upon themſelves afterward, as dependingupon that one prime place, as a ſtream upon a Fountain: which they owned by communicating there, with the Biſhop and his Clergy, as oft as it was poſſible for them ſo to do.
Thus it is apparent, by the Hiſtory of the Acts of the holy Apoſtles, that the very firſt Preachers of Religion began in Cities; and afterward carrying the glad tidings of the Goſpel into the adjacent Towns and Villages; thoſe Towns and Villages lookt upon themſelves as but one Church with that City, and thither repaired, as oft as they could, to teſtify their unity therewith. Eſpecially at the high Feſtivals: when anciently there was ſuch a multitude came to receive, that in ſome places the Church could not contain them. So we learn from a Letter of Leo the Firſt, Biſhop of Rome, to Dioſcorus Biſhopof Alexandria, in the Fifth Century: where he adviſes him, that when any great Feſtival makes the Aſſembly more numerous, and there meets together ſo great a Company of Believers, that one Church cannot contain them, there is no queſtion but the oblation of the Sacrifice muſt be renewed; when the firſt company is gone, and the Church is filled again with the preſence of a new Aſſembly, Epiſt. 81. And St. Auſtin tells us (in the famous Epiſtle before-named) that the Thurſday before Eaſter, the numbers of the people were ſo great in ſome places, that the Sacrament was celebrated both Morning and Evening: whereas on that day the cuſtom was to celebrate it only in the Evening.
Which as it ſhows the wonderful decay of Devotion among us, in compariſon with ancient times, ſo reproves that grand error which is now crept in among us, even among well-diſpoſed people, in many ſuch places as this. Where the people imagine, that if they Communicate in the Pariſh Churches of the City where they live; they need take no notice at all of the Cathedral there. No, they rather indeavour, and ſometimes with a factious kind of zeal, to advance the credit of their Pariſh Churches, in oppoſition to that great Church, from which they all flowed, and on which they ſtill depend.
This is quite out of the way of ancient Religion, which taught men to bear the greateſt regard to the Mother Church, where the Principal Paſtor of their Souls was ſeated (and thence called the Cathedral) and to deſire with him immediately to communicate, as oft as they had opportunity, or could conveniently.
For to do otherwiſe, was in effect to throw off all reſpect to him, or very much to neglect him and his See; and was lookt upon as the principle and beginning of Schiſm, by breaking the unity of the Church: and in time led men to that peſtilent fancy, which now very much prevails; that every Pariſh Church in the Dioceſs is a diſtinct Church; which hath all power within it ſelf.
VI.
We therefore who are Prieſts and Deacons, placed in a Cathedral, ſhould, above all others, be willing, nay deſirous to comply with the Order of our Church, now recited: and not eaſily admit of any cauſe, as a reaſonable excuſe for our forbearance. For, let me further acquaint you, that, afterthe people contented themſelves with receiving every Sunday, at leaſt; ſtill the Prieſts and the Deacons, and ſuch, as were not intangled in ſecular buſineſs, continued the ancient cuſtom of receiving the Communion every day.
This we learn from Micrologus, and Walfridus Strabo before-mentioned, and the old Book of Divine Offices in Caſſander; and from Rhegino, who lived not much above ſeven hundred years ago. In whoſe Book of Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline, we find this memorable record; that if any Prieſt, or Deacon, or Sub-Deacon, or any other of the Clergy, being in a City, or a place where there was a Church, did not come to the daily Sacrifice, he ſhould not any longer be accounted a Clergyman; if, upon reprehenſion, he did not amend.
And can we think it unreaſonablethen to be tied unto leſs? which is, to attend upon this Sacrifice (as it may be truly called, in many reſpects) every Lords Day, at the leaſt? We ſhould rather think it an honour, and high priviledge, that we may wait upon him ſo oft at his Altar: and look upon our ſelves as bound to do him honour, who hath ſo highly honoured us, by reſtoring this Commemoration of him in his Church, as near, as we can, to its primitive perfection.
VII.
And, as a motive to it, let me now proceed to tell you, that when Chriſtian People grew leſs frequent in receiving the holy Communion; this neglect was attended with a great decay of holyneſs and good manners. As when they grew leſs devout, theygrew more negligent in this holy duty: ſo this negligence produced great ſloth and careleſsneſs, in all the other duties of a Chriſtian Life. For becoming leſs ſenſible of their obligations to their Lord and Maſter Chriſt, who bad them thus remember him, they became unmindful of the reſt of his Commands; by forgetting this, which was intended for the making of a perpetual Sacrifice of their Souls and Bodies to him. As we may be convinced, by obſerving what a wide difference there is between the firſt Chriſtians, and us in theſe dayes: that is, between them who had Chriſt continually in their thoughts; and us, who ſeldom remember him.
Then their thoughts were, in a manner wholly imployed, in contriving how to get to Heaven; and now all our thoughts are, how to get as much as we can in this preſent uncertain World. Then they had but one Soul, in the whole body of Chriſtians; and we are ſo many men, ſo many minds. Then they would lay down their lives one for another, now we kill and deſtroy, at leaſt hate and bite, and are ready to devour one another. Then they were for doing all the good they could to others; now we are all for our ſelves, and it is well if we be not contriving miſchief, and doing injuries, or ill offices to our Neighbours. Then they feared no dangers; but now we are unwilling to ſuffer any thing. Then they lived in abſolute obedience to the worſt of Governours; but now we are apt to quarrel with juſt Authority, and to find fault with every thing that is done by our Prince, and our Superiours.
Unto what can we more probably aſcribe this difference, than to their frequenting and our neglecting of the Holy Communion? In which opinion I am not ſingular, for Dr. Jackſon, I remember (ſometime Dean of this Church) thought it very likely, that the Wars of Kingdoms, the Contentions in Families, the infinite multitude of Law-Sutes, the perſonal hatreds, and the univerſal want of Charity, which hath made the World ſo miſerable and ſo wicked, may, in a great degree, be attributed to the neglect of this great Symbol and Inſtrument of Charity.
Which could not but cloſely knit us together in Brotherly love and affection, if the nature of it were duly conſidered. For that is ſuch, ſaith Mr. Calvin, in the place before-named, as ſhows it was not intended to be received once a Year only, but to be in frequent uſe among Chriſtians: that in a frequent memory they might repeat the Paſſion of Chriſt; and by that Commemoration ſupport and ſtrengthen their Faith, praiſe the loving kindneſs of God, and cheriſh mutual Charity among themſelves; nay, give a teſtimony of that one to another, whoſe Bond they beheld in the unity of the Body of Chriſt. For as oft as we communicate of the Symbol of Chriſts Body, we ſtrictly ty our ſelves mutually one to another (by giving, as it were, and receiving a token and pledge thereof) to perform all the offices of love and kindneſs: ſo that none of us will do any thing, whereby our Brother may receive any harm; nor omit any thing, whereby we may be helpful to him, when his neceſſities require, and our abilities are ſufficient.
VIII.
And now, in the laſt place, I ſhall further ſhow the great neceſſity of this duty; by repreſenting to you this ſad truth: that as the ſeldom Celebration of the Holy Communion, was attended with a lamentable decay of holy Living; ſo thereby the Chriſtian Worſhip it ſelf was no leſs wofully corrupted and depraved. For from hence have riſen, I can clearly ſhow, ſundry dangerous corruptions in the Roman Church: of which we complain very juſtly; but do not charge upon the right cauſe.
I will mention three or four.
I. Firſt, The Prieſt's communicating alone by himſelf, which in truth is no Communion, aroſe from that groſs negligence, whichI am now perſwading you to amend.
The Church of Rome hath thus far preſerved a right notion of the holy Communion, as to conceive it to be a part of the daily Service: upon which the people, as you have heard, attended, more or leſs, for ſome Ages. But in proceſs of time, they, growing cold, left only the Prieſts and Deacons to communicate with him that miniſtred: and the Prieſts and Deacons alſo growing remiſs, he was at laſt left alone. Who, in ſome places, continued to ſay all the Prayers, and read the Epiſtle and Goſpel, and all things elſe belonging to this Service, until he came to the Conſecration; and there broke off: but, in other places, he ventured to proceed further; and conſecrated, and received the holy Communion by himſelf alone.Which laſt way of proceeding, being found moſt for the profit of the Prieſts, it grew to be a cuſtom in the Roman Church, for the Prieſt that officiated, to communicate alone, when there was no Body to receive with him. For if there had been no Communion, there would have been no offerings; and therefore they continued the Communion, though there were none to communicate: nay multiplied private Maſſes, that there might be as many oblations as ever.
This is one corruption, which hath moſt certainly ſprung from the indevotion of Chriſtian People.
II. Another, as bad or worſe, is this; the giving the holy Communion in a Wafer.
For the ancient cuſtom being, as we read in Honorius Auguſtodunenſis, for the ſeveral Families in a Town to bring to the Prieſt, the flower, with which the panis Dominicus, as he calls it, the Lords Bread was made; or elſe to join together to bring a Loaf ready made by a common contribution to it; which was called their oblation, and the Hoſt (being for the repreſentation of our Saviours Sacrifice on the Croſs) when the Church was increaſed in number, but grew leſs in ſanctity (as his words are) this Loaf dwindled from a great one into a little one, according to the ſmall number of Communicants: till at laſt, there being no Communicants at all, it ſhrunk up into a Wafer; that is, a little thin bit of Bread, in the form of a ſmall piece of money (the people offering ſuch pieces of money in ſtead of Meal) being juſt ſo much as the Prieſt could eat himſelf, when there was no body to receive with him.
This is the Original of Wafers; which ſtill retained the name of the Hoſt, after it was no longer the offering of the people, nor a repreſentation of Chriſts Sacrifice: theſe Wafers having brought in this corruption, that now there is no breaking of the Bread, in repreſentation of the breaking of Chriſts Body. Though it be expreſly mentioned, in the Inſtitution of this Sacrament, where we read, that Chriſt took Bread, and brake it, &c. and is ſo much belonging to the eſſence, as we ſpeak, of the Sacrament, that the Sacrament took its name from hence; and is called in Scripture, breaking of Bread.
Behold here again, what Chriſtian people have done by their indevotion.
Which hath given occaſion toſuch a conſiderable depravation as this. For St. Paul ſpeaking of this part of the Euchariſt, calls it the bread that we break, 1 Cor. x. 16. and our Lord himſelf explaining the Myſtery of this Bread, ſaith poſitively, this is my body, which is broken for you, xi. 24.
Which evidently ſhows, that the Bread ought then to be broken, or elſe it cannot be Chriſts Body broken for us: and therefore that this breaking of the Bread is not ſuch a ſuperfluous thing, as the Church of Rome now makes it (for the Bread is not broken there) but ſuch a part of this Sacrament, as without it, the ſufferings of Chriſt upon the Croſs are not fully repreſented to us.
But thus, as I ſaid, the negligence of Chriſtian People, in not frequenting the Holy Communion, hath maimed this Sacrament. Nay,
III. The Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, in all probability came from the ſame original. For the Prieſt being left alone at the Communion, they found it neceſſary to magnify what he did there, as much as it was poſſible: that ſo the people might bring their offerings more freely, though they did not receive together with him. And they magnified his operation ſo much, till at laſt it brought forth this prodigious conceit; that he held the very natural Body and Blood of Chriſt in his hands, after the Conſecration. Which fancy obtained the more eaſily, by the help of the Wafers now mentioned: which having neither the form, nor figure of Bread, nor being like any ſort of food, uſed in the World, ſerved to baniſh out of peoples minds, the thoughts of any ſuch thing as Bread, whichthey received in the Holy Communion.
See here again how men have ſpoiled our moſt excellent Religion, by neglecting the conſtant practice of it. For this Doctrine of tranſubſtantiating the Bread into the very natural Body of Chriſt, is the more abſurd; becauſe in reality there is not ſo much as true Bread preſented unto the Prieſt to tranſubſtantiate; if ſuch a feat could poſſibly be wrought. For the beſt Chriſtians, after theſe Wafers were introduced lookt upon them as unfit for conſecration; being unworthy of the name of Bread, and not being at all broken; and therefore did ad Chriſtum & Eccleſiam nihil pertinere, not at all belong to Chriſt or his Church: as Bernoldus a Prieſt of Conſtance adventured to ſpeak, in the Eleventh Century. For he is that ancientWriter, whom Caſſander mentions, as the Expounder of the Roman Order; and commends, as a pious, prudent perſon, and well skilled in the Eccleſiaſtical Traditions; excepting only the indignation he expreſſed at the reducing of the oblations of Bread for the uſe of the Sacrifice, into this form of Wafers, much different from the form of true Bread: which he called therefore in contempt mites of nummulary oblations (being in the form of little pieces of money) and aſcribes to them an imaginary ſhadowy lightneſs, which deſerve not the name of Bread, they are ſo thin: and inveighs againſt them in more and ſharper words than theſe; which Caſſander (in his Book of Liturgicks, cap. 27.) ſaith he, thought it not expedient to tranſcribe in that place. But what he hath tranſcribed abundantly ſhows how wiſe and good men reſented this change in the Sacrament; by reaſon of which the Divine Service, and the Religion of the Eccleſiaſtical office, as that Author ſpeaks, was much, every way, confounded.
IV. Laſtly, This very thing hath turned the holy Communion, in that Church, into a propitiatory Sacrifice, offered up to God both for the quick and the dead. Which hath proved a moſt horrible abuſe, having no other original than that now named: the peoples not communicating, but leaving the Prieſt alone at the Altar. Who, being loth to loſe the oblations, as well as the peoples Company, began to ſpeak very high things of the ſaving efficacy, which from this action of the Prieſt alone, redounded even unto thoſe whodid not Communicate with him.
Which opinion being once received, as a popular conceit, men gave money freely and abundantly for private Maſſes; out of a perſwaſion, that thereby they ſhould procure remiſſion of ſins, both for themſelves and for others; both for thoſe alive, and thoſe who were dead.
By which things I hope you ſee the great miſchief of neglecting the holy Communion; which hath even undone the Chriſtian World: for it hath ſpoil'd Chriſts holy Religion, and turned it into quite another thing; by moſt groſs depravations of it.
Which have had this effect, even upon us, who are called Reformed; that they have rooted out the principal part of Gods Service from among us, and made it lame and imperfect. For the Church of Rome, having retainedthe cuſtom of celebrating the Communion every day, but turned it into a Sacrifice for the quick and the dead, though none but the Prieſt partake of it; this is the uſe which the Enemy of Mankind hath tempted us to make of their abuſes: to perſwade our ſelves that ſo long as private Maſſes are aboliſhed, we need not trouble our ſelves to be frequent in the Celebration and Communion of the Euchariſt.
Now this is even according to the hearts deſire of our grand Adverſary the Devil; who can be content with ſuch a Reformation as this, while we retain the very root and foundation of all the abuſes which we have reformed: viz. Negligence in frequenting this Holy Sacrament. Which I hope we ſhall be careful alſo to reform at laſt; if men will but lay to heart, ſuch things asI have laid before their Eyes.
Which let us ſee, that though the particular time of communicating be not named in Chriſts Inſtitution, yet that is no argument, we may take our own time for it, and do not offend God ſo it be done ſome time or other: but quite contrary, that our Lord intended it ſhould be performed at all times, when we aſſemble for Divine Service. Thus the firſt and beſt Chriſtians underſtood it; thus they practiſed, and tranſmitted this practice unto Poſterity, who for ſome Ages continued it; and though it be not continued till theſe times, yet we are forced to acknowledge, that the remembrance it importeth (as that excellent man Mr. Thorndike ſpeaks) is ſo proper, ſo peculiar to the profeſſion we make, that our Aſſemblies never look ſo like the Aſſemblies of Chriſtians, as when it is celebrated: But are really naked without it; or, at leaſt, want the Crown of that Service for which we aſſemble; that moſt excellent piece of Service, which is peculiarly appropriated to the worſhip of our bleſſed Lord and Saviour. By the neglect of which, the love of God and the love of one another is deplorably decayed; and the Chriſtian Religion alſo ſo depraved, that they who reformed it in many things, have not been able to reſtore it to its integrity.
And therefore now that God hath put it into the heart of our pious Metropolitan, to call upon us and enjoin us, to live more ſtrictly according to the Rules and Orders of our Religion, by celebrating the holy Communion at all our more ſolemn Aſſemblies; I hope none of us will be any longer diſobedient and refractoryto ſo godly a motion: but rather forward to comply with the Command of God, and of our Governours.
It may not be in the power of man perhaps, ſo to command the occaſions of this World, as that all ſhould be always diſpoſed to communicate; yet in ſo great a number as here come together to worſhip God, there cannot but always ſome perſons or other be found, who are not ſo encumbred, but they may be fit, if they pleaſe, to receive the holy Communion with us. Certain I am it ought ſo to be; and what ought to be, may be, and will be, if the reaſon upon which it depends be duly conſidered. If it be not, ſo that for want of perſons diſpoſed to communicate, the holy Sacrament of Chriſts Body and Blood, cannot be celebrated every Sunday; it is a wilful neglect, forwhich nothing can be alledged, but too much love of this World: which ariſes from too little a ſenſe of the love of our bleſſed Saviour, and too ſmall valuation of his ineſtimable benefits.
Which I beſeech you, let us awaken our minds to weigh and ponder; and then we ſhall make it part of our buſineſs, to contrive our affairs in this World, in ſuch a manner, that there never want ſome Company at the Holy Communion. And it is no hard matter ſo to order things, that ſome receiving one Sunday, ſome another; all may receive, at leaſt, once a Month.
What ſhould hinder, if we have any mind to it, and will ſet our ſelves about it? what can ſtand in the way of ſuch a bleſſed, and comfortable Reformation as this? Of which though we have not heard a word from the great pretendersto Religion, in an Age wherein ſo much hath been talkt of the Reformation of the Church; yet all the true Children of it, who underſtand and ſeek its good are ſenſible, that the continual celebration of the Euchariſt, and the Diſcipline of penance to preſerve the people in a diſpoſition fit to receive it, are ſuch points of reformation in the Church (as the great man before-named expreſſes it) that without reſtoring theſe, all the reſt is but mere noiſe and pretence; if not miſchief.
And theſe are the things at which the Order of our Church aims, for as it earneſtly ſighs and groans (as you read in the Commination) towards the reſtoring of publick penance (which is the only means eſtabliſhed by the Apoſtles, to maintain the Church in condition to communicate continually) ſo it enjoins, as you have heard, the continual celebration of the Euchariſt, in Cathedral, and Collegiate Churches, and Colledges, every Sunday at the leaſt: which ſuppoſes it would be ſtill more agreeable to its deſires, if it were done alſo upon other Feſtivals.
Now what ſhould hinder us, I ask again, from coming thus near to the primitive Devotion, though we do not come up quite to the utmoſt perfection of it? Unleſs it be the fancy which works in many minds, that to Communicate three times in the Year (as the Church injoins every Pariſhioner, at the leaſt, to do) is ſufficient for any Chriſtian. Which may well be called a fancy; ſince it is manifeſt, the Church names three times in a Year, as the very loweſt degree of Devotion, leſs than which it would account prophaneneſs: and I have demonſtrated, that we have little or nothing to ſay for our Communicating ſo ſeldom as once a Month; but only this, that in moſt places it is no oftner adminiſtred.
In the Mother Churches it will hereafter be more frequently: which will, in ſome meaſure, conform us to thoſe ancient Churches which communicated every Sunday. For all the Country Churches in the Dioceſs, being but parts of the Mother Church; it may be truly ſaid, the holy Sacrament of Chriſts Body and Blood, is adminiſtred once a Week, in all our Churches.
Where I beſeech you let us never want a competent number of Communicants: And, that we may not, do not any longer imagine that you ſhow ſufficient reſpect to our Saviour, if you reſolve to come thrice a Year. Iwiſh every one were careful of doing ſo much; but, let me further tell you, they that ſet themſelves ſuch a ſtint, will be in danger too oft to fall ſhort of that: And therefore it is far ſafer, and more becoming to aim at, and endeavour after higher attainments; by coming more frequently to the Table of the Lord.
Hear how ſharply that great perſon, St. Chryſoſtome, inveighs againſt thoſe, that contented themſelves with receiving only at the Feſtivals, eſpecially at Eaſter. It is in his third Sermon upon the Epiſtle to the Epheſians: where having expounded the laſt words of the firſt Chapter; which repreſent our bleſſed Lord as the Head of the Church, advanced far above all principalities and powers, &c. He thus begins his Sermon.
Let us reverence our Head; let us think with our ſelves of what Head we are the Body: a Head, to which all things are ſubject: what an honour is this, to be, in ſome ſort, viz. in our Head, advanced above the Angels and the Archangels? Let us reverence then this kindred, this affinity, which we have with Chriſt our Head. Let us fear, leſt any of us be cut off from this Body; leſt any of us fall away; leſt we appear unworthy of our relation to him.
If any body had ſet a Diadem, or a Crown of Gold upon our Head, would we not have laboured by all means, not to appear unworthy of thoſe liveleſs ſtones? And yet, now that there is not ſo little as a Diadem put upon our Head, but Chriſt himſelf, which is infinitely more, is become our Head, we make no account at all of it. The Angels reverence it, the Archangels and all the Heavenly Powers do him honour: we only who are his Body, neither for this reaſon, nor for the other, have any conſiderable regard to him.
What hope then is there of our Salvation? Think upon that Royal Throne; think upon that exceeding great honour God hath conferred upon thee: and it will be more powerful than Hell fire it ſelf, to affright thee into a due regard towards him.
With a great many more ſuch like efficacious words (which I do but abridge) he preſſes his people to the greateſt purity of life: and then, at laſt, comes in particular, to preſs them from this Argument to a religious care of receiving the holy Communion.
I ſee, ſaith he, many of youreceive the Body of Chriſt, but it is rather from cuſtom, and for order ſake, than out of reaſon and underſtanding If it were the holy time of Lent, ſaith one, or if it were the Epiphany (that is Chriſtmas Day) ſaith another; who would not prepare himſelf to partake of the Holy Myſteries? Is it then Chriſtmas, is it the time of Lent, that makes a man a worthy Receiver? I thought it had been ſincerity of Soul, holineſs and purity of Life. With theſe come always: without theſe thou haſt no right to come at all. For as oft as you do this, you ſhow the Lords Death (quoteing my Text) that is, you make a Commemoration of the Salvation wrought for you, and of the benefit Chriſt beſtowed upon you.
Conſider then, how abſtemious, how careful were they, who did partake of the old Sacrifices, under the Law. What did they not do? What expence were they not willing to make? They were always purifying themſelves, that they might partake of the Altar. But thou, coming to a Sacrifice, at which the Angels are aſtoniſhed, circumſcribeſt the buſineſs, and confineſt it to certain periods of time (thou wilt receive it at Eaſter, at Christmas; then thou wilt be pure and clean to partake of it.) But how wilt thou appear before the Tribunal of the Lord Jeſus, who dareſt with impure hands and lips to touch his Body? For ſo it is: at other times you will not come, no not though you be pure; but at Easter you will needs come, though you have lately perhaps been bold tocommit ſome great tranſgreſſion.
O the power of Cuſtom! or rather, O the power of Preſumption! The daily Sacrifice is in vain; we ſtand at the Altar to no purpoſe; there is no body to partake with us: but then (at Eaſter) abundance of Company by all means will croud in upon us; though as unworthy as at any other time.
I do not ſpeak this, that you ſhould receive without any more ado; but that you would prepare your ſelves to receive worthily, oftner than you do: conſidering, if thou art unworthy of the Sacrifice, if thou art unworthy to partake; how art thou worthy to pray with us?
Thou heareſt the publick Officer, making Proclamation, All ye that are under penance, depart. They then that do not partake, are under penance. If thou art one of thoſe, thou oughteſt not to partake: for he that partaketh not, is in the number of the Penitents. To what purpoſe doth he proclaim, depart, all ye that cannot pray? (viz. with the faithful) and yet thou impudently ſtayeſt, and doſt not depart?
But thou art none of thoſe, and therefore thou doſt not depart. That is, thou are in the number of thoſe that may receive, and art invited to it; and yet thou regardeſt it not, thou makeſt no account of this matter.
Mind, I beſeech you. There is a Royal Table ſpread; the Angels miniſter there; the King himſelf is preſent; and thou ſtandeſt gaping careleſly; refuſing to partake with him. What a ſhame is this! Doſt thou appear there in filthy Garments, and art nothing concerned about it? No, thy raiment is pure: why then doſt thou not approach and partake? How comeſt thou to be here, if that be not thy buſineſs? For all that are in their ſins, are firſt thruſt out: and therefore thou that ſtayeſt, ought to partake of the myſteries; or elſe thou art impudent and wicked too. Had it not been better, if a man invited to feaſt with a great perſon, had not appeared, than to come, and not to touch a bit of the meat? Even ſo it is with thee; thou art come to this holy Banquet; thou haſt ſung the Hymn with all the reſt; by this very thing thou profeſſeſt thy ſelf in the number of the worthy, in that thou didſt not depart with the unworthy: how comes it to paſs then, that when thou ſtayeſt,thou doſt not partake of the Lords Table?
I am unworthy, thou ſayeſt. Then, I ſay again, thou art unworthy of that Communion, which is in the Prayers: For not only for the holy myſteries, but for the Prayers alſo, and for the Hymns, the Spirit deſcends always.
A great deal more, ſaith he, might be added (as indeed he doth ſay much more, which I have omitted) but that I may not burden your minds, this may ſuffice. And they that are not reclaimed and brought to a better mind, by what hath been ſaid; will not be mended, though we ſhould ſay never ſo much.
And theſe things are ſaid by us; But, O that he who pierces the heart, he that gives the ſpirit of compunction, would vouchſafe to prick every one of our hearts! That theſe things may be deeply ingrafted there, and, in his fear, ſprout and bring forth fruit: ſo that, with all confidence and freedom we may approach unto him, and it may be ſaid as it is in the Pſalms (though to a different ſenſe) Thy Children are like Olive Branches, round about thy Table.
The end of the ſecond Diſcourſe.