On Frequent Communicating

Section One

§1. The prejudices of many pious and well-disposed people, against the late overture of the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, concerning frequent communicating, [1] make it necessary to acquaint them with the reasons on which that overture was founded, that men of honest minds may see if there is cause for that strange and hideous outcry which has been raised against it.

Others, better qualified for such a task, have thought fit to decline it. Several of my fathers and brethren, both at the meeting of Synod and since, have urged me to undertake it; but their solicitations would scarce have moved me to publish anything on the subject, so crude and indigested as what follows, had not some circumstances convinced me that silence of those who are convinced of the goodness of the overture has had much worse effects, than could have flowed from even the weakest defense.

The question, whether the Synod’s overture should be rejected or approved, depends on two subordinate inquiries. Is the design of dispensing the Lord’s supper in every congregation, at least four times a-year, in itself good? And are the means proposed for gaining that end, the most proper, and least exceptionable?

§2. Let us begin with inquiring if the design of dispensing the sacrament thus often, is in itself a good one? – And here let us for once suppose, that there is no scripture precept or pattern obliging us to frequent communicating.

Supposing this, it must at least be allowed, there is no restraint laid upon us, in the word of God, from partaking frequently of the Lord’s supper. If no precise time is fixed in scripture for dispensing and receiving it, and if no precise degree of frequency is enjoined, yet none dare allege, that there is any time in which we are prohibited to dispense and receive that ordinance, or that any degree of frequency is absolutely prohibited. From this it follows, that we are left at liberty to dispense the Lord’s supper as often as is consistent with the right performance of other religious exercises, and the due discharge of the common duties of life.

And if such a measure of frequency is lawful, may I not venture a step further, and pronounce it, if not necessary, yet at least in the highest degree expedient? If the Lord’s supper is an ordinance of so comforting and improving a nature, as almost all acknowledge it, should we not account the frequent enjoyment of it a privilege? And if God has not deprived us of that privilege, do we act a wise and friendly part for our own souls, in depriving ourselves of it?

To give this argument its due force, let us consider a little the nature and design of the Lord’s supper, and what benefits may be expected by those who worthily receive it.

It is the ordinance our Lord Jesus has peculiarly set apart to keep up the remembrance of his sufferings and death. There we see the loving and lovely Jesus laying down his life as a sacrifice and atonement for our sins; and shedding his precious blood to purchase for us a happiness large as our wishes, and lasting as eternity. We see the Lord of Life suffering a painful, an ignominious, an accursed Death; that by thus fulfilling the condition of the covenant of redemption, he might secure grace and glory, and every good thing, not to us only, but to an innumerable multitude, which no man can number, of all tongues, and kindreds, and nations, and languages. We behold the height and depth, the length and breadth of divine love to a perishing world: Of the Father’s love, in inflicting upon him such unparalleled sufferings, that we might not suffer; of his own love and condescension in cheerfully bearing them. We behold the Son of Man glorified, in bearing that load of wrath, without fainting under it, which would have sunk a whole world in irrecoverable misery. We behold God glorified in him, and all the divine perfections shining with united luster, the justice of God sweetly combining with his mercy to punish our Surety, that we the offenders might be forgiven. From a deep and heart-affecting sense, that we, and all the children of men, who obtain salvation, must be wholly indebted to that amazing transaction for obtaining it, we are made to say, “God forbid that we should glory, save in the cross of Christ. We will remember thy love more than wine: we will rejoice in thy salvation; and in the name of thee, our God, will we lift up our banners: For thou, Lord, hast made us glad through thy work, and we will triumph in the works of thy hands. Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift: And blessed be he who hath come in the name of the Lord to save us. Hosannah in the highest.”

Ask your own hearts, O Christians, are you in any danger of remembering these things too much? And if you remember them at all, can you do it in any better method than that which infinite wisdom has prescribed?

Suppose a Friend, who has received a deadly wound in defending us from danger, should, when about to expire, present us with his picture, and recommend it to us with his dying breath, too keep it as a token and remembrance of his friendship and affection, what would gratitude oblige us to do? Would we cast it into some bye-corner out of sight? Would we suffer it to be sullied with dust? or buried under lumber, neglected and forgotten? Would we not rather hang it in our chief room? Would we not honor it, not only by care to preserve it from abuse, but by frequent looks, thereby to renew, and, if possible, to increase an affectionate remembrance how much we were indebted to our departed Friend? – Can we then pretend to honor our Redeemer, when we answer his care in providing and recommending his supper as a representative of his death, by a contrary care, in seeking pretences to lay it aside?

§3. The Lord’s supper is a visible badge of our Christian profession. – Nature has taught mankind, and God himself has confirmed it, that every religion should have some solemn rite whereby it may be known to the very eye, from other religions. Circumcision, the Passover, etc. under the Mosaic economy, were all intended (not excluding other ends) to be signs between God and his people, i.e. rites whereby they might be distinguished from idolaters: and therefore a terrible threatening was leveled against the neglecters of these rites, that soul must be cut off from his people: He has put off the badge of my people, and therefore must not share in their privileges. All this being highly rational, Christianity has its distinguishing rites, as well as Judaism had.

Prayer, thanksgiving, and such-like holy exercises, are common to almost all religions, and observed by the Jew, the Turk, and the Heathen, as well as the Christian. – Baptism we receive in our infancy, and without our own consent; and therefore it cannot be the principal criterion of our Christian profession. But by partaking of the Lord’s supper, we distinguish ourselves from all who despise the gospel of Christ, and testify, in the most public manner, our regard to a crucified Savior, our concern to keep up the remembrance of his death, and our resolutions to adhere to him and his cause, while by others he is disregarded and set at naught.

Our Lord, well knowing how loath we are to undertake anything difficult, although for the sake of him who was our best benefactor, would not burden us with any number of troublesome ceremonies: and therefore he only appointed this one ordinance, by which we should openly declare ourselves on Christ’s side, and proclaim to the world our grateful, affectionate sense of our unparalleled love. Ought we not, then, to be frequent in thus openly confessing Christ before men, while too many are ashamed of him and his words in this adulterous and perverse generation?

The Lord’s supper is also intended as a seal and confirmation of the fullness and freedom of the offers of grace in the everlasting gospel. For as really as the minister offers the bread and wine to the communicants, so really God the Father offers Christ, the bread of life, to every one of us for the nourishment of our souls. – And are there any, whose faith is so lively and vigorous, that they seldom need the help of this ordinance to strengthen and increase it?

Is not the Lord’s supper an ordinance, in which God is often pleased to vouchsafe special communion with himself, and his Son Jesus Christ? Does it not often prove meat indeed, and drink indeed, to the fainting soul; a means to convey large measures of spiritual nourishment and growth in grace? Indeed, suitable impressions of Christ’s loving us, and giving himself for us a sacrifice and an offering to God, of a sweet-smelling savor, are the great means by which holy dispositions are begun, carried on, and perfected in the soul. And what can tend more to awaken a lively sense of these things, than beholding the symbols of the broken body and shed blood of Christ? How many, who went to the Lord’s table feeble and faint-hearted, have received such plenteous communications of light and life from the glorious head of influences, that they have been made to renew their strength, to mount up with wings as eagles, to run and not be weary, to walk and not faint?

Who is there amongst us, whose need of the Lord’s supper, for one or other of the above purposes, does not frequently return? Has, then, God provided for us so rich an entertainment? Does he allow us often to regale ourselves with it; yea, even invite us in the most warm and earnest manner? And, is it not a contempt of the goodness and condescension of God, and injuring our own spiritual interests, to neglect any opportunity of sitting down at the table of the Lord? “Our soul-necessities,” says the judicious Mr. Willison,[2]

do call for frequency in partaking: for we are oft ready to forget Christ, and therefore we oft need this ordinance to bring him to our remembrance. We are oft subject to spiritual deadness, weakness of faith, and decays of grace; and therefore have frequent need of this ordinance for strength and quickening. … there is ground to fear, that the infrequent celebration and participation of this blessed feast, which Christ hath prepared for us, is an evil that many in this church are chargeable with, and for which the Lord may plead a controversy with us. How can we expect but he will depart from us, when we stand at such a distance from him, and come so seldom near him in the method he hath appointed? Can we look for the smiles of Christ’s countenance, when we live so much in the neglect of his dying words? Is it any wonder our hearts are so hard, when we are so seldom applying the blood of Christ for softening them? Or that our graces be so weak and withered, when we so little use the means for strengthening and cherishing them? Is not the frequent use of this ordinance, in the way Christ hath appointed, an excellent help to soften our hearts, renew our repentance, strengthen our faith, inflame our love, increase our thankfulness, animate our resolutions against sin, and encourage us to holy duties; and shall we willingly neglect it? It is no wonder that we complain we miss what we aim at and expect in this ordinance, when we are so little sensible of former neglects. It is a sad sign our receiving of the sacrament is not right, when it leaves not in us earnest breathings for the like opportunity. It is impossible for us to meet with Christ, and taste of his sweetness and fullness in this ordinance, and not long for another meeting.

Thus far Mr. Willison. Many excellent reflections to the same purpose may be found in Charnock’s Works, vol. 2, p. 758-768, which those who have the book would do well to peruse.[3]

§4. The two preceding paragraphs abundantly prove, that if frequent communicating cannot be urged as absolutely necessary, it may safely be recommended as highly expedient and beneficial. But, perhaps, upon inquiry, we shall find in scripture an express injunction of frequency in partaking of the Lord’s supper. For, that a prince should require a tribute to be paid him by every one of his subjects, and yet never express what sum should be paid, and at what time, is incredible. In like manner, I cannot easily bring myself to believe, that our Lord should require his church, to the end [of] the world, to eat bread, and drink wine, in commemoration of his death, without specifying how often he would have it done. – The Jews, though they understood not the utmost signification of the Paschal rite, yet had full directions how often, and in what day, they were to sacrifice and eat the lamb. If, then, the word of God has assigned no precise time for partaking of the Lord’s supper, will it not follow, that the gospel is more obscure than the law; and that our Lord, when he took the veil off Moses’s face, covered with a thicker veil his own?

1 Cor. 11:26 bids fair for containing such a special direction. As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the Lord’s death till he come. Dr. Bury observes,[4] that the words, this bread, and this cup, must refer to some particular bread and cup, well known among the Jews, of which, as often as they ate and drank, they were bound to remember the sufferings of Christ. That accordingly (if we may credit Buxtorff and Leo Modena) it was usual at their feasts, for the master of the house, to take a loaf of bread, and bless, and break it, and give to each person about the bigness of an olive; and if there were three or more eating together, to take a glass from off the table, and bless it also, and give to each of the guests a little of the wine in the glass. – If these remarks be well founded, it will follow, that if the Jews knew how often they had such festivals, that was direction sufficient how often to partake of the Lord’s supper.

But I mention this, rather as a subject of inquiry, than an hypothesis with which I am fully satisfied. There are many natural and obvious objections against it, which I do not think that ingenious writer has removed.

Dr. Wettenhall has offered another conjecture,[5] that a certain determined frequency in communicating is enjoined in these words (1 Cor. 11:25), This do ye, as oft as ye drink, in remembrance of me. He observes, that the particle it is not in the original, and is not supplied in the vulgar Latin, the Syriac, or any of the old versions. He then goes on to argue thus:

If with our own, and most modern translations, we supply the particle it, and thereby understand the cup in the sacrament, this makes the command to signify just nothing. For, what sense is there in this form of speech, Drink this cup, as oft as ye drink it? Or, if we repeat the noun, instead of using the pronoun, Drink this cup in remembrance of me, as often as ye drink this cup in remembrance of me. We must therefore conclude, that the verb pinhte stands here absolutely, or by itself. And probably it is used in the Hellenistical sense of the word for feasting or banqueting; and so the text will run thus, Do this in remembrance of me as often as you feast, or, on all your holy feasts. Now, for as much as every Lord’s day was, even when this epistle was writ, already among the Christians a holy feast, therefore the command will come to thus much, Do this, or celebrate my supper, every Lord’s day at least. At least, I said, for other holy feasts they might have besides the Lord’s day, but this most surely they all had. See 2 Pet. 2:13; Jude 12 compared with 1 Cor. 11:20-21. The plain meaning, then, of the command, This do, as oft as ye drink, in remembrance of me, is, ‘I know that you, my disciples, will keep every first day of the week as a holy feast, with joy and gladness, in memory of my resurrection; and I intend so to order it. Now, see that every such day you remember my sufferings too, as well as my resurrection.’

These are the only passages that look like an injunction of any precise degree of frequency in partaking of the Lord’s supper. Mr. Charnock has indeed cited one from the Old Testament for the same purpose. The practice of weekly communicating, he says:[6]

was perhaps grounded on Ezek 43:27. And it shall be upon the eighth day, and so forward, the priest shall make your burnt-offerings upon the altar, and your peace-offerings, and I will accept you, saith the Lord. A prophecy of gospel-times, and the cessation of the ceremonial law of daily sacrifices: By burnt-offerings being-meant the Lord’s supper, the remembrance of the great burnt-offering whereby our peace was made: And by peace-offerings, prayer and thanksgiving, which are called sacrifices (Heb. 13:15). And on the Lord’s day, being the eighth day, following upon the seventh, the Jewish Sabbath.

But I much doubt if the primitive Christians, fond as some of them were of allegorizing and mystical interpretations, ever carried their regard for these to the ridiculous height of building upon them a practice of such importance as weekly communicating. It is more probable their practice was founded on a New-Testament precept, plain to them, though to us dark and obscure.

§5. But that obscurity will be no plea for our seldom communicating. For whatever difficulty there may be in finding an express precept, the Apostolical Example, which is as binding as a precept, is so clear and obvious, that he who runs may read it. And to me it seems something strange, that those who suppose the apostolical practice sufficient to change the Sabbath from that day on which God, in the fourth Commandment, had enjoined it to be kept, should pay so small regard to it in this instance, where it alters no command moral or positive, but serves to clear up a material circumstance in observing a precept which otherwise might seem indeterminate. – Let us therefore take a survey of such passages of scripture as throw any light on this important subject.

§6. The sacrament was instituted by our Lord that night in which he was betrayed. From this circumstance, allow me to remark, that it may lawfully be dispensed on other days, as well as the Sabbath.

§7. Less than a week after, even the very day of our Lord’s resurrection, being the first day of the week, and the Christian Sabbath, the Lord’s supper is again dispensed by Jesus himself (Luke 24:13; compared with 24:1). For that day, while two of the disciples are walking together to Emmaus, Jesus comes up with them, and takes occasion, beginning at Moses and all the prophets, to expound to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Btu though this heavenly preacher speaks to them as never man spoke, still they were ignorant it was he; fond, however, of his company, they constrained him to abide with them, as the day was far spent. And it came to pass, says Luke (Luke 24:30-31), as he sat at meat with them, he took bread and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him. Jesus could have discovered himself to them how and when he pleased. Sure, then, he who does nothing in vain had some wise reason for choosing to do it in these, rather than in other circumstances. And what reason so probable as to put a distinguishing respect on the sacrament of the supper, by making it the first means of manifesting himself to these disciples? Why else were the disciples so careful to report this circumstance? And why was the evangelist (Luke 24:35) so punctual to record, that they reported not only the thing, but the manner, in what manner he was known to them by the breaking of the bread? Must the our Lord’s choosing this manner of manifesting himself to them preferably to all others; must the care of the disciples in reporting this manner; and must the care of the evangelist in recording both the one and the other: must all this, I say, be imputed to mere chance? Did they account this an insignificant circumstance, though they appear to lay particular stress upon it? And though they seem to honor it, did they intend that we should pass it by without the least regard? I know not how a rational answer can be given these questions by such who interpret the passage of common bread. Cartwright betakes himself to a strange shift. It was not, he says, the breaking of bread itself, by which Jesus was known to his disciples, but something peculiar in his manner of asking a blessing before meat.[7] Is not this commentary a plainly contradicting of the text? And can that cause be a good one, which reduces so able a critic to so poor an evasion?

The expressions used by Luke in this passage (Luke 24:30), seem so parallel to his expressions when recording the original institution of the sacrament (Luke 22:19), that I am persuaded few would have mistaken his meaning, had not the church of Rome misapplied this passage to prove from the example of our Lord, that it is sufficient to distribute the bread in the sacrament without the wine. – But would it not have been easy to have confuted that sophism, by observing, that eating of bread is a phrase for the whole of a feast, and therefore the mention of it does not exclude other ingredients of a feast. Besides, the Papists themselves allow, that though the bread may be distributed without the wine, it is never to be consecrated apart. But here is no mention even of the consecration of the wine. If then the evangelist’s silence is no proof that the wine was not consecrated, it is as little proof that it was not distributed.

From this passage I remark: (1) That the Lord’s supper was the first religious institution, in which our Lord, after his resurrection, manifested himself to his disciples. (2) That this ordinance was twice dispensed by Jesus himself in the space of a week. (3) The evangelist’s remarking, that it was dispensed to the two disciples the first day of the week, seems an intimation, that our Lord intended it should be a principal part of the sanctification of the Christian Sabbath.

§8. Acts 2:42, we are told of Peter’s converts, that they continued stedfastly in the apostle’s doctrine, and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer. The words hsan proskarterountev, which we render continued steadfastly, properly denote constancy, or perseverance in an exercise, or waiting continually upon anything, as appears from the use of the same word [in] Acts 1:14, 4:4, 8:13, 10:7, Rom. 12:12 and 13:6. And, therefore, whatever is meant by breaking of bread, it is plain they were as constant in that, as in attending on the apostle’s doctrine and public prayer. All, then, we have to inquire is, If the expression relates to the Lord’s supper, or to a common meal?

Dr. Whitby explains it of the latter, in his notes on this passage: “I see,” he says, “no necessity to think these words relate to the receiving of the sacrament, for the phrase of the breaking of bread, is used by the evangelists, Matt. 15:36 and Mark 8:19-20, when they relate Christ’s miraculous feeding the multitude.”[8]

But, in answer to this, I would observe, (1) That the argument does not require us to maintain, that breaking of bread must always relate to the sacrament. It is enough to our purpose, if the expression is capable of that sense, and if the scope of this passage makes it necessary here. (2) That the phrase is capable of being understood of the sacrament, is universally allowed; and Dr. Whitby himself explains it of the sacrament, Acts 20:7, 11. It is used by Luke eight times,[9] and by Paul twice;[10] and in all these passages, except Acts 27:35, it is almost certain it relates to the Lord’s supper; and even that passage is applied by Tertullian to that ordinance.[11] Ignatius, a writer in the apostolic times, uses the same phrase of breaking of bread, where he is plainly speaking of the Lord’s supper.[12] (3) The other exercises mentioned here, in conjunction with breaking of bread, are all of them religious exercises, attendance on the apostle’s doctrine, fellowship, prayer. What then has breaking of common bread to do in such company? It adds strength to this argument, that Justin Martyr,[13] and Tertullian,[14] mention the Lord’s supper, and the other exercises of which Luke here speaks, as stated exercises of the worshipping assemblies of Christians. (4) The Syriac version of the New Testament, which is the best and oldest extant, and probably was composed in the apostolic times, if not by the apostles themselves, as Mr. Jones has strongly shown, in his excellent book on the Canon;[15] that version, I say, interprets breaking of bread, of the eucharist; and most of the Fathers were of the same opinion.[16] – From all this we may infer, that in the public assemblies of the primitive Christians, breaking of bread in remembrance of Christ, was as stated an exercise as attending on the apostle’s doctrine, joining in prayer together, or communicating to the necessities of their poor brethren.

§9. It is said of the same persons (Acts 2:46), And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread in a house, did participate the food with gladness and singleness of heart.

Suppose we were to retain the common translation, breaking of bread from house to house, that would be no conclusive argument, that the Lord’s supper is not intended; for the multitude of the faithful might render it inconvenient for all to partake of the sacrament in one house, and on that account it might have been dispensed successively, in different houses.

But our translation is plainly faulty, and the cause of the mistake is easily traced out: kaq' hmeran, in the first clause of the verse, signifies daily, or from day to day; hence it was imagined, kat' oikon must signify, in very house, or from house to house; whereas it is evident, from the use of the preposition kata, when applied to place, that it denotes some precise determinate place. See Luke 8:39; 10:32-33; 15:14; 23:5; Acts 9:42; 11:1; 8:1 and 16:7; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem 2. And never relates to more places than one, except the substantive to which it is joined be in the plural number, as Luke 13:22; Acts 5:15; 8:1, 3 and 20:20. Or be connected with an adjective denoting universality, as Acts 15:36. Accordingly, Scaliger observes, that in an old Roman inscription, tamian ton kata polin, does not signify the treasurer of every town, or the treasurer from town to town, but the treasurer of the town, viz. Rome. To confirm these remarks, I observe, that neither the Arabic nor Syriac version renders kat' oikon, from house to house, but only at home, or in a house.

The temple being a house of prayer for all nations, that part of worship the disciples were at liberty to perform there, and accordingly they continued daily with one accord in the temple. But they could not dispense the sacrament there, without drawing upon themselves certain destruction. They were therefore under a necessity of holding private conventicles for that purpose, in places where they might be in less danger of disturbance.

Both Jews and proselytes were careful to provide a large upper room in their houses for religious exercises. What more probable, than that the primitive Christians, having performed their daily devotions in the temple, at the hour of prayer, should then repair to a large upper room to partake of the Lord’s supper, perhaps that very upper room in which our Lord instituted the sacrament (Mark 14:15, 22), and where the eleven continued, with Mary, in prayer and supplication (Acts 1:13-14)?[17] This is the more likely from what we are told, Acts 5:42, Daily in the temple, and in a house (for so it should be rendered), they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. In the temple, to convert infidels; in the private house, to strengthen and confirm believers.

From this passage, it is probable, that the church at Jerusalem received the Lord’s supper every day.

§10. The next passage to our purpose is Acts 20:7. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, etc.

From this passage it is plain: (1) That it was the custom of the first Christians to keep the Lord’s day holy, or as a day appointed fro religious worship, and accordingly to hold their public solemn assemblies on that day. St. Paul did not call them together, as he did the elders of the church (v. 17), but the disciples were themselves sunhgmenoi, met in their assemblies. The context informs, that Paul tarried at Troas seven days. Though he was hasting to Jerusalem, he did not, as easily might have done, summon an extraordinarily assembly on any of these days, but contented himself with more private labors; and chose rather to delay his journey till the return of the first day of the wek, when he was sure of a full assembly of Christians. (2) The great design of their meeting was to break bread, i.e. to celebrate the Lord’s supper. This was with them a constant branch of the sanctification of the Sabbath; and perhaps their thus remembering the death of Christ on that day, is none of the least causes of its being termed the Lord’s day. It adds probability to this, that Chrysostom terms the Sabbath the day of bread.[18] Shall we then, on the Lord’s day, omit an exercise from which it principally derives so honorable a name?

§11. That in all church-meetings the Lord’s supper was dispenses, is further evident from 1 Cor. 11:20, 21. The apostle had said a little before, that their meeting together was not for the better, but for the worse; this he proves from their behaving themselves so in these meetings, that they neither did nor could eat the Lord’s supper as became that holy institution. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper, i.e. it is not so to do it as that sacred action ought to be performed. Now, this argument evidently supposes, that whenever they assembled together, they came to eat the Lord’s supper; for otherwise their coming together, so as not to eat the Lord’s supper, would be no proof that their coming together was for the worse. Had the apostle charged the Corinthians as guilty in some particular meetings in which the Lord’s supper was immediately concerned, we had then understood, that it was not a constant exercise in their worshipping assemblies; but, on the contrary, he charges them with profaning the Lord’s supper in all their meetings; and what is termed coming together (v. 17), coming to the church (v. 18), coming to one place (v. 19), is termed coming together to eat (v. 33).[19] Which shows that whenever the Christians met together in one place for religious exercises, eating of bread was a part of their employment.