Section IV.
James Dodson
SECT. IV.
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
VARIOUS exceptions may perhaps have occurred to the Reader in perusing the preceding pages. It may seem that many things usually brought forward are entirely overlooked, or studiously kept out of view, particularly the usage of the primitive age, the sentiments of reformers, and other topics on which the advocates for frequency are wont to en-
[p. 74]
large. Appeals to facts are indeed calculated to make a more forcible impression on the majority of Readers, than general reasoning. But who knows not that we are to judge of facts by principles, and that many practices which boast of high antiquity are far from deserving approbation or perpetuity? Let the nature and design of the Lord’s Supper first be determined, and let every usage ancient or modern be tried by this standard. Lest however it should be thought we are afraid to encounter the mass of facts which have been placed as in battle-array against the Presbyterian method, the following observations are added to remove objections as well as farther confirm our positions and the principles on which they are founded.
I. The practice of the church in the APOSTOLIC AGE does not militate against what has been stated.
The facts on this head are recorded in Scripture, and are therefore to be distinguished from others. Could it be proved, that while the church was under the immediate inspection of the apostles the practice was hostile to the presbyterian method, that method might then be justly suspected, there would at least be some ground for attempting reformation. Let the idea of hostility however be carefully remarked.
The subjects of the New Testament church were not, like the children of Israel at Sinai, all collected and capable of being organized at once. The gospel behoved to be diffused; the disciples were to go and teach all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. The New Testament fabric was to be gradually reared. It was enough if it rose sufficiently into view to discover its plan and symmetry ere the apostolic age expired, and while the wise master-builders were employed about it. Its erection too, behoved to be considerably af-
[p. 75]
fected by circumstances to which it was necessary some regard should be had. We find that Jesus accordingly did not at once promulgate a system of ordinances, or code of laws minutely detailed, under various sanctions, and to be instantly carried into effect, as was done at Sinai. During the forty days he spent on earth he was employed in delivering the pattern in private to his disciples; afterwards he completely enlightened them in regard to all things pertaining to the kingdom, by the effusion of the Holy Spirit, but this was properly an internal illumination*. He meant that by these master-builders the church should be erected and its plan disclosed to the world as providence should open the way. Much therefore is to be learned from the conduct of the apostles and its results. In these the mind of Christ is brought forth both as to government and the observance of divine institutions, where we often find no express laws or injunctions. But on the very ground stated, it ought not to be taken for granted in appeals to the apostolic age, that every notice which occurs either in regard to government or observance, is something from which abstractly considered we may reason with sufficient force. No; various considerations must be taken into view. The tendency of the procedure adopted by the apostles, the form and state into which they evidently laboured to bring the church when not impeded by circumstances, the
_____
* John xiv. 26. Acts ii. 2, 3. 1 Cor. ii. 16. They had the mind of Christ, not publicly proclaimed as at the giving of the law, but internally revealed, to be by them gradually brought forth. Such was the New Testament legislation, as real as the Old, and so predicted and described in allusion to it, Acts ii. 19, 20. Psal. l. 1—7. but different in mode as well as spiritual grandeur. Circumstances required it should be so. Read Heb. xii. 18—25, 28.
[p. 76]
intimations of the general plan they had in their eye, and as they could overtake it carried into effect,—these ought to be clearly marked, and they are the proper rules by which we ought to be guided. Notices of some things different from the Presbyterian mode of observance may occur, which, if we adhere to these rules of judging, may yet be found by no means hostile unto it.
Before reasoning from the practice of the apostolic age in regard to the Supper, it seems but just that the following things be recollected: 1st, The distance between many of the newly planted churches. This necessarily rendered them in a great measure independent both as to government and observance. That intimacy of fellowship which the ordinance of communion was designed to promote, might not be attainable. Members from different congregations could not always come together into one place to testify their unity. Connected with this, if a church or congregation was at a great distance from others, so that it had little, perhaps no access to the Supper when dispensed in them, there would be a necessity for a more frequent observance of the ordinance in it, than if more happily situated*.—2dly, The great
_____
* Thus too, general convocations of deputies from the different courts by which congregations were governed, could not at once be established. The idea of the unity of the visible body of Christ was secured, in this state of things, by the relation in which the apostles stood to the whole church. Matt. xix. 28. Gal. ii. 7, 8. Their extraordinary powers also rendered presbyteries and synods less needful. Tit. i. 5. with 1 Cor. xi. 34. Divine decisions on subjects about which they were applied to, were given in their epistles. The first to the Corinthians is a specimen. The idea of unity was also supported by the general deaconship for which providence gave occasion, Acts vi. For perpetuating this idea, however, and exhibiting the man-
[p. 77]
need of confirmation in the days of the apostles. Churches newly erected and organized, consisting of converts from among the Jews or heathen, needed much to be established in the faith and profession of Christ. For this end the observance of the Supper was eminently adapted. We should not be surprised then to find a peculiar frequency of administration in that age. Multitudes of new converts were also coming in, to whom it was proper to dispense this seal, and confirm them in fellowship with the household of faith. We might expect that the apostles or evangelists as they went their rounds in visiting the churches, would celebrate the ordinance wherever they came, and enjoin a frequent observance even though the association of brethren from neighbouring
_____
[continued from p. 76.] ner in which it should be realized as to government when the apostolic office had ceased, presbyteries were established. Acts xxi. 18. explained by ver. 25. and 1 Pet. v. 1. 1 Tim. v. 17. Particularly in 1 Tim. iv. 14, we have a notice of a presbytery according to the usual acceptation of the term, for it seems absurd to suppose a meeting called to bestow extraordinary gifts on Timothy, which any apostle could have done, and more absurd to imagine that any but teaching elders could ordain him to the office of a preacher and evangelist. Paul it is likely himself conferred this last office, or he might be present at the ordination of Timothy, 2 Epist. i. 6. An occasion was also afforded in providence for a more general assembly in which the apostles sat with the elders to decide in a certain cause; and in which, though the men of inspiration were present, with others supernaturally gifted both elders and people, yet the mind of the Spirit came to be known only as in the synods of Presbyterian churches. Acts xv. xvi. 5.—Thus did Jesus the Lord of the church provide for her future state, when extraordinary relations and powers should have ceased, and thus did he disclose the intended plan of government. It is possible to account from circumstances for all that has the appearance of independency in the apostolic age. But what circumstances can account for the great lines of Presbyterianism then stamped on the church? These must have been the fruit of design.
[p. 78]
congregations should not always be attained.—3dly, The propriety and necessity of deeply impressing on Christians in that age, the idea of the abolition of the law. For this purpose the ordinance of the Supper was specially calculated,—the memorial of the death of Christ, the sign of the atonement made, a seal of the New Testament, the only feast of the church, a feast exclusive of sacrifice, simple in its rites, and intended to supersede the passover. There might on this ground be a peculiar expediency in frequent observance. It proclaimed the virtual abolition of the law by the death of Jesus, and while it familiarized the mind and heart to this, contributed to the actual abolition.
Though some differences then between the practice in the apostolic age and that in use among Presbyterians should be marked, little will be gained in point of argument. Peculiarities were to be expected, nay, in some instances necessitous deviations from the intended plan. But were the things which may be alleged, designed to be perpetual, or did the leading principles on which the apostles proceeded tend to perpetuate them? If an opponent would reason to purpose, he ought to shew something in these principles hostile to the plan we would support, or point out in the instances to which he may refer, an indication of some other general plan different from ours, but manifestly that according to which the apostles proceeded.
But let us look into the history of the apostolic age. Peculiarities we have said might be expected, few of them however are recorded; the record was to serve for direction, and it is not encumbered with these. Rather according to it we find, that so far as practicable the communion of different congregations took
[p. 79]
place, and we have no proof that there was any such frequency as had been incompatible with this.
1st, We have no express injunction of frequency. However surprising it may seem, considering the ado that has lately been made on this topic, the frequency of observance is left to be inferred from the importance of the ordinance, and to be regulated by the most proper plan of accomplishing all its ends.—The words of Jesus, “Do this in remembrance of me,” are usually brought forward in triumph. But what do they affirm about frequency of dispensation in the same place? Though every Christian will consider them as an address to his heart, and a call to neglect no opportunity, they are properly declarative of the nature of the ordinance. “Do this,” instead of keeping the passover, and “in remembrance of me,” not as a figure of something to come, but in memorial of what is past. The words bear on the substitution of the Supper instead of the antient feast, and hence, while they lay an obligation on gratitude, cannot be supposed to enjoin such a frequency as would remove the idea of solemnity which they transfer and attach to the Supper, or prevent the manifestation of unity in which that ordinance behoved to fulfil what the passover did of old.—‘But have we not full proof in 1 Cor. xi. 26. “As often as ye eat this bread, &c.?’ There is certainly no precept in the passage; this is still a great desideratum; nor is there any thing in regard to example, which might be considered as binding. The word ὁσάκις, “as often as,” would require much criticism to elicit the idea of frequency, yet it has been held out to the people on account of the sound of the English rendering as complete proof. To minds unaccustomed to mark the force of words, it might be difficult to prove in an
[p. 80]
abstract grammatical way, that a sentence in which the term “often” occurs, conveyed no particular idea of frequency. We might say the words as often as are a kind of phrase expressive of proportion, or equivalent to whensoever. But an example or two may answer the purpose better. Suppose one were to say, ‘As often as the General Assembly meets, a speech is made from the throne,’—would this imply that it met frequently, or more than once in the year? Here the phrase is used simply in regard to time; but in the passage referred to, it is not used even in this sense, or as directly bearing on time. To produce a more apposite example; suppose our apostle having received accounts of the introduction of profane song-music into the worship of God in certain churches, and of the adaptation of hymns and spiritual songs to light and wanton airs, had written to these churches reprimanding them for their practice,—he might have described to them the ordinance of praise, enlarged on the solemnity of it, and then concluded his admonition with desiring them to be on their guard, since, ‘As often as they sang in the assemblies of Zion, they were professedly shewing forth the praises of Jehovah.’ It must have been obvious that the phrase here was exactly equivalent to “whensoever,” and that the same idea might have been expressed by that term. The frequency of the exercise is neither implied, affirmed, nor denied in it. Much less does it contain or insinuate any injunction to frequency, which is in no respect the subject. It merely states the nature of the exercise, to inspire with a proper respect to the gravity that ought to be displayed. The idea is this, ‘religious singing is a shewing forth the praises of God,’ not the celebration of some hero, or of some amour storied in a po-
[p. 81]
pular ballad. Precisely similar is the idea, 1 Cor. xi. 26. The apostle had heard of great abuses in the observance of the Supper. He wrote to correct these, not to excite to frequent dispensation, nor even to the duty of frequent communicating. For the purpose of correction and admonition, he lays out the form of the institution to serve as a model, and to impress with a sense of the solemnity of the ordinance. He then warns them of the danger of mismanagement, putting them in mind, that ‘as often as, or whensoever they ate that bread and drank that cup, they were shewing the Lord’s death,’ not holding one of the collation suppers to which they had been accustomed in their heathen state, nor any thing of the like nature. The phrase gives no specific intimation with regard to the practice of the primitive church. Though the Supper had been dispensed thrice in the week, or but thrice in the year, the words might have been used with the same propriety, and would have conveyed the same meaning, namely, that it was a shewing the Lord’s death, and therefore not to be lightly thought of, nor inconsiderately observed.
In favour of frequent dispensation, it has farther been urged, that our Lord, even during the forty days he remained on earth, kept the Supper repeatedly with his disciples. Passages where the breaking of bread among them is mentioned, are quoted; and it is contended that the phrase must refer to the Supper, because at the time of institution he promised “to drink of the fruit of the vine new with them in his Father’s kingdom.” But, 1st, The strength of this reasoning rests, in some measure, on our Lord’s having drunk literally of the cup at the time of Institution. The argument must stand thus: “The promise re-
[p. 82]
fers to his joining with them in the same manner as he did when it was made; but when it was made, he partook of the external symbols, therefore he must, to verify the promise, some time or other have joined with the disciples in a literal participation of the ordinance, which could only be between his resurrection and ascension.’ That our Lord however literally partook at the time of institution is no where expressly stated. The supposition that he did, is encumbered with a difficulty that ought to have been solved: Luke seems to represent him as declining even to drink of the passover cup, and declaring that he would “no more drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God should come.” How could he then a little after, and while the kingdom was not yet come, drink of the fruit of the vine at the supper?—But, 2dly, Allowing that he did literally partake in both instances, choosing to make the same declaration in regard to each, must the promise necessarily be understood of the same kind of participation? If so, then it must be limited to the apostles, and wholly restricted to the period he spent on the earth, after he rose from the dead.—3dly, What if it might be shewn, that during that period the kingdom of God could not properly be said to be come? Though Jesus was then glorified, he was only in his prophetical character, laying the foundations of that kingdom by the instructions he gave to his apostles, and which he concluded with the sublime commission, “Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them.” Even after this they were to wait at Jerusalem till endued with power from on high. It was with the effusion of the Spirit the kingdom of heaven commenced in the church; “I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you in my Father’s kingdom;” in that state, when
[p. 83]
exalted to my Father’s right hand, I shall rule for him in Jacob to the ends of the earth.—4thly, Our Lord, if he did join with his disciples, observed the ordinance at the time of institution, in a certain way, which is distinguished from his drinking the fruit of the vine new; he observed it as still with his disciples under the preparatory state of things which was soon to become old. The ordinance did not belong to that state, but it was kept at first in prospect of his sufferings; it might be in the way of his being sealed to these, and of having all the blessed consequences of them in the New Testament represented and sealed to him the surety, for the support of his humanity in prospect of the approaching awful scene in which it was to be involved. But whatever purpose the ordinance might serve to him on the eve of his sufferings, we ought to remember, that after his resurrection, as soon indeed as the kingdom of heaven in any respect began with him, he was glorified, and thus beyond the sphere of sacred ordinances. The case is different with respect to the church: though under the kingdom of heaven, we are not in a glorified state, and therefore the participation of external signs belongs to us. On these grounds we conclude, that the promise refers to spiritual communion, of which indeed it is beautifully descriptive. It lends no aid to the notion of his repeatedly observing the Supper with his disciples before his ascension. And, 5thly, The passages it is called in to cover with this meaning, relate to common entertainments. Shall we suppose he took the two disciples at Emmaus by surprise, and began to dispense the Supper?—that, without intimating his design, he came out with the words, “This is my body,” &c. and after having begun and thus discovered himself, withdrew without completing the feast? No: they
[p. 84]
were set down to a common meal, when Jesus, perhaps by the peculiar manner in which he addressed the Father, or by assuming his wonted character and manner when respected as the head of his family the twelve, was instantly recognised. He had done what was sufficient to convince them of his resurrection, and therefore immediately disappeared. They reported their conviction, but not a word of the Supper.—He did not stay to eat with them, as it was unnecessary. But this farther proof of his resurrection he afterwards gave, because it seemed to be a method calculated to remove from the minds of his disciples all hesitation about the fact—“While they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honey comb,” (neither fish nor honey were ever permitted to be used in any divinely instituted feast*) “and he took it and did eat before them.” Luke xxiv. 41—43. This and similar instances, of which we have another recorded John xxi. 12, 13. are evidently those appealed to Acts x. 41. “God raised him up the third day, and shewed him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before, to us who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.”—In fine, There is no proof that the Supper was observed during all the period Jesus remained with his church on earth after his resurrection,—a circumstance somewhat perplexing to the advocates of weekly communion, or of frequency on the sole ground of spiritual advantage.
2. There is no evidence from the New Testament, that the Lord’s Supper was observed every first day of the week. It cannot be reckoned fair or candid, to bring forward every passage where the breaking of bread
_____
* Lev. ii. 11.
[p. 85]
is mentioned, as if this ordinance were always meant. The phrase alludes to the Jewish custom in all their meals, which though followed in the Supper, and indeed necessary in order to have broken bread, the proper symbol, is not itself a significant rite. The account we have of the believers “breaking bread from house to house*,” is manifestly descriptive of the fellowship they had with one another in their necessary meals, as having “all things in common.” These very meals, in that peculiar state of things, became a kind of love-feasts, and perhaps gave birth to the custom. A considerable number might join together at each repast, and spend the time in edifying conversation; for it is added, “they did eat their meat with gladness, and singleness of heart,” without suspicions and envyings, in undisembled sincerity, in mutual confidence and affection. We may allow the Supper to be meant in Acts ii. 42. because the “breaking of bread” is there connected with other exercises of devotion. But there is only one clear notice of the observance of this ordinance in the whole book of Acts, chap. xx. 7.
This notice, however, is thought to be sufficient, and quite in point: “On the first day of the week, the disciples came together to break bread,” therefore it was their usual practice. Nothing, it would seem, could be more convincing. Had the words, indeed, been a general assertion, intended to notify the usage of the church, the argument had been good. As if this were the case, they are commonly quoted in the above insulated manner. But if they refer to any particular instance, the argument fails; if to an extraordinary occasion, it is lost. Let us suppose,
_____
* Acts ii. 46.
[p. 86]
for the sake of an example, that instead of new-moon, the Jews had been appointed to keep full-moon as a period of sacred worship; any one, previously acquainted with the history, must have perceived the difference between these two sentences, ‘At full moon the Jews killed and offered sacrifices to the Lord;’ and, ‘At full moon they killed the passover.’ The latter sentence would not imply that every full-moon was observed by killing the passover, but only that when it was killed, this was the season. If, on a certain occasion, the disciples of a particular church came together to break bread on the first day of the week, all we can infer from the notice is, that they did not keep the Jewish Sabbath, and that they preferred the Lord’s day as the most proper time for having the Supper dispensed, when it was to be so; but not that it was even their custom, much less the universal custom of the church, to have it dispensed every first day of the week. If farther, there be something extraordinary mentioned in regard to that occasion, such as the presence of an apostle, which they had not every Lord’s day, the natural conclusion is, that the opportunity was embraced on this account. On the first day of the week, when Paul being present, the disciples came together to keep the Lord’s Supper; he officiated, and honoured the dispensation of that ordinance with a discourse of uncommon length. As in visiting the churches he intended to confirm them, it was proper to dispense the sacrament, though perhaps not at the usual time, (if times were then fixed,) ere he departed; and accordingly, choosing to honour the first day of the week with this sacred observance, he waited for it, delaying his departure till it should be past.—“But the multitude continued in the apostle’s doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of
[p. 87]
bread.” ‘Now, as we find they met on the first day of the week for this breaking of bread, their continuance in the practice must denote the constancy of it every first day of the week.’ Such arguments need no refutation. To persevere, be diligent, and wax bold in the faith of the gospel, and the observance of divine institutions is one thing, to have the sacrament every Sabbath is another; the former may obtain, where the latter does not*.
3dly, Certain intimations, unfriendly to the idea of weekly communion occur.—Not only is there no proof in its favour, there is something against it. The first passage to which we shall here revert for more particular consideration, is 1 Cor. x. the second, chap. xi. 20. where we have a notice, by the bye, of the mode of observance.
Let us attend to the reasoning in chap. x. Some of the Corinthian Christians had given great offence to their brethren, whose consciences were weaker, by partaking at feasts with their heathen friends, even of meats devoted to idols. This liberty was not expedient, did not tend to edification; it scandalized, not only Jews and Gentiles, but the church of God†. The apostle admonishes them, to consider the nature of that fellowship they professed in the Lord’s Supper. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ,” &c. They were to take care they did not trespass against their conjunct profession of this fellowship, either by symbolizing with the heathen, or offending the consciences of their brethren in seeming to do so: “We being many,” says he, “are one body and one bread, for we are all par-
_____
* Acts ii. 42. ἦσαν προσκαρτεροῦντες. See ver. 46. Col. iv. 2. &c.
† Ver. 23—33.
[p. 88]
takers of that one bread.”—Now, in the 1st place, This reasoning tends to establish a general rule, not restricted to the members of one congregation, as if it were enough for them to be observant of one another, without regarding the consciences of their brethren in other congregations pertaining to the same body. “We,” says the apostle, including himself, who was not directly a member of the Corinthian church, “we Christians, being many, are one body.” But how does the argument from the testification of this in the Supper apply? where is its force, or why should an appeal be made to what is done in this ordinance, if there was not by it, even in that age, as far as could be attained, a circulation of visibly expressed communion throughout the body? “We being many are one bread, for we are all partakers of that one bread.” The conclusion is, that therefore, wherever we are, and whatever be our more immediate connections with the church, we must beware of stumbling or offending any of our brethren in the body, particularly of causing general offence. Though directly connected with this or the other congregation, we are members of one body, and stand related to our brethren in all the congregations of which it consists. Of this our fellowship with them in the great ordinance of visible communion is the token and pledge.—But, 2dly, There were several congregations even at Corinth. The reasoning which proves that there were several distinct congregations at Jerusalem, at Antioch, at Ephesus, &c. proves that the Christians at Corinth might be spoken of, or addressed as one church like those in the places specified, and yet be divided into several congregations; and it establishes a strong probability that the case was the same
[p. 89]
at Corinth as in these places*. Arguments from the account of conversions at Corinth, go to confirm the point, that the case was actually the same. And we have a direct assertion of it, 1 Cor. xiv. 34. “Let your women keep silence in the churches†.”—Now the general rule laid down, admitted on this ground an express application to the Corinthian Christians. The members of one church-meeting were to be observant, not merely of their brethren in it, but of all their brethren with whom they were wont to join in the ordinance of the Supper. Suppose the members of one church had all been more enlightened in their own view than those of another, were they, because the liberties they took gave no offence among themselves, therefore warranted to indulge in these to the scandalizing of their brethren? Would the argument of the apostle have failed in this case? Or does he not rather appeal to their fellowship in the Supper as de-
_____
* The appeal is made to the reasoning on the multitude of Christians at Jerusalem, &c. because the information is more full in regard to these places. See AYTON on Church Government, chap. ii. sect. 5.
† It is vain to plead that the churches here meant are not those of Corinth but of other places, such as the churches of Judea, of Galatia, or of Macedonia; for what had the women of Corinth to do in these churches, so as to need a prohibition from preaching or speaking in them? However improperly some of them might be disposed to conduct themselves in their own churches, there is no reason to think they were itinerants. Vindication by WHYTOCK, p. 12. Dr CAMPBELL suggests what may account for the sacred writer’s styling the Christians at Jerusalem, Corinth, &c. one church, after several congregations might have been erected. The first congregation formed in these places, founded the name, which was retained, even after that mother-church had produced others around her. At the same time, the conjunction of these churches under one presbytery, (Acts xxi. 18.) and their joining in one place in the celebration of the Supper, may be taken into the account, tho’ the Doctor supposes both these parts of order to be of later date. Lect. vol. i. p. 49, 253—266.
[p. 90]
monstrative of their unity, and represent this ordinance as that which God had provided to keep alive the idea of general relations, to be a caveat against any one’s supposing he had no concern but with the members of his own congregation? but how could the apostle appeal to it in this light, if it had been a part of stated observance, restricted, like the other parts of divine worship to each congregation, by being kept every first day of the week? It must have been an occasional observance, affording an opportunity for the members of the several churches to associate in visible communion, “We being many,” and though thus necessitated to meet for stated worship in distinct congregations, are yet “one body,” and this is testified by our joining together in the Lord’s Supper; there we proclaim that we are “one bread,”—as intimately connected as the portions used, or the particles of which they are composed,—“for we are all “partakers of that one bread.”—3dly, The scheme of weekly communion destroys the force of the argument, as intended to be of permanent use in the church. The idea of spiritual fellowship pervading a body may be called in; but under this idea too, the strength of the consideration suggested, evaporates; for spiritual fellowship exists, and must exist among all genuine saints, nay, in a certain sense, among all Christians of the same profession, though many of these may be greatly defective in their duty to Christ, or to their brethren in the Lord. There was indeed no necessity for appealing so specifically to what is done in observing the Supper, if spiritual fellowship was solely meant by the apostle.
‘Did the Corinthians then assemble to celebrate conjunctly this ordinance of communion? How was it practicable, since they are said to have been so
[p. 91]
many that they could not meet together in one place, and are therefore supposed to be divided into several congregations?’ The difficulty here is wholly imaginary: How do the Christians of Edinburgh, St Cuthberts, and Leith, hold fellowship in the Supper? That all in these districts should meet together for the purpose, is by no means requisite. Might not the church at Cenchrea, the port-town of Corinth, and at but a small distance from it, have communion in the same manner, by some of her members with the Christians at Corinth*? The sacrament behoved not to be dispensed in both places on one day, this was all that was necessary.—But though the association of a few members from other congregations, as in this degenerate age, may produce a circulation of visible communion, the primitive Christians seem to have been more studious of fulfilling the design of the ordinance. In 1 Cor. xi. 20. we have a notice of their coming together into one place to eat the Lord’s Supper. This was the second passage to be adduced. The terms imply at least a very general assembly for the purpose. They throw light on the reasoning in chap. x. they confirm the view we have taken, and let out, as it were, by the bye, the manner of observance, to which the apostle refers, and on which we have seen the strength of his argument depends.
The Author is no stranger to the use Independents have made of the words now quoted, to prove that what are called churches at Corinth, Jerusalem, &c. were but single congregations, which could meet in one place for common worship. He knows also the replies of Presbyterians, stating that the phrase does not always mean gathering into one place, but sometimes engaging in the same actions, being combined
_____
* Rom. xvi. 1.
[p. 92]
to the same purpose, or existing in the same state*. But let it once be proved by valid arguments, as has been done†, that the church at Jerusalem, at Corinth, &c. consisted of several congregations, or of such multitudes as could not all meet in one place for stated worship; and then to admit, that the phrase ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ refers to place, so far from hurting the Presbyterian cause, must be in its favour, particularly on the head of communion. It will be found, 1st, That the phrase most commonly, if not always, except when used adverbially, or in regard to time, as in Acts iii. 1.) signifies into one place. But, 2dly, That an extraordinary meeting, or assembly is meant.
In support of the first position, we remark, that only one passage is pointed out in the New Testament, where the words are thought to bear a different meaning. This is the quotation of Psal. ii. 2. in Acts iv. 25, 26. “The kings of the earth stood up, and the “rulers were gathered together (ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ,) against “the Lord, and against his Christ‡.” ‘When,’ it has been demanded, ‘did the kings of the earth and the ‘rulers assemble together into one place against Christ?’—As far as a literal interpretation is concerned, the Jewish council met in one place, and the people of the Jews, with their rulers and chief-priests, gathered also unto Pilate’s judgment-hall, to have Jesus condemned. ‘But kings?’ Well, Herod, tetrarch of Gallilee, was also up at Jerusalem, and if certain punctilios did not permit him to meet in the same hall with Pilate, or to consult personally with him, they were at least both in one city, and that city a re-
_____
* AYTON, Orig. Const. of the Church, p. 215, 216, 217.
† Ibid. chap. ii. sect. 5. Vindication by WHYTOCK, p. 4—19.
‡ The verb here expressive of “gathered together,” is the compound συνήχθησαν.
[p. 93]
markable place, (worthy of being hinted at) for such a combination against the Lord’s Anointed,—the place which God had chosen as his rest, and made the centre of his worship.—But who sees not, that both the words of the Psalm, and the form in which they are quoted must be figurative? Did kings at the time referred to, even in “harmony of design,” conspire against Christ? To make out kings, we must view Pilate as the Emperor’s agent and representative, and join Herod with him. But Herod also held his government of Tiberius, so that we have but one king or emperor thus represented. The words of the Psalm are prophetically descriptive of all combinations that ever have taken place, or yet may, against the Lord and his anointed; and declare, that though the greatest personages should engage in these combinations, disgrace and ruin must be the issue of their plots. The prophecy had a special reference to the conspiracy against Christ in the days of his flesh. In this, the emblem and pattern of every other combination, it was strikingly verified. Hence it is quoted with a commentary explaining it, and accommodating the very terms in that instance, to Herod, Pontius Pilate, the rulers, and the people of the Jews. But the prediction is of extensive application, and it is adorned with such grandeur of imagery, as might completely expose the folly of attempting to counteract the purposes of heaven. The kings and rulers of the earth are figuratively described as assembling into one place, meeting to concert their measures together, while God is represented as looking down on their assembly, and observing their plans with a smile of contempt*. Al-
_____
* Other instances of the use of this phrase, ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, are quoted from Dr LIGHTFOOT by Mr AYTON, in which it is supposed to signify
[p. 94]
lowing, however, that “harmony of design” were the idea of this passage, must this always be considered as the idea suggested by the phrase? What tolerable sense could be put, according to this idea, on the Corinthians being said to “gather together ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, to eat the Lord’s Supper?” When a phrase has different applications, the sense in which it is used must be determined by the place where it occurs, or by other circumstances. The natural idea in the passage is evidently that expressed by our translation.
But, 2dly, The phrase denotes some extraordinary meeting, or bears upon some peculiar occasion of being together. Were not this the case, it would be quite pleonastic when joined with συνάγω, συνέρχομαι, or similar verbs. In plain English, when speaking of a multitude assembling, after saying they came together, to add “into one place,” would be needless, unless there were some peculiar reason for the intimation; for how can people gather together but into one place? the thing is implied in the very notice of their assembling. If we attend to the passages where the phrase occurs, we will find reason for its use. Abner and Joab, with their respective companies, “met toge-
_____
[continued from p. 93] something else than “into one place;” these are from the Septuagint version. But on consulting the passages it will be found, that in all of them, the idea of one place may be understood; in some of them it can bear no other meaning, Judges xx. 33. xix. 6.—Isa. lxvi. 17. is explained by ver. 24. the allusion is to Tophet. Were not the companies mentioned, 2 Sam. ii. 13. met in one place, even at the pool of Gibeon? Though on opposite sides of the pool, they were as near as was expedient. May not the LXX. have mistaken the sense in Jer. vi. 12.? or what sense, according to their version, can be made of the threatening? In Psal. xxx. 3. xlix. 2. there was no occasion for inserting the notice of “one place.” But it does no harm, does not alter the meaning.
[p. 95]
ther in one place,” or at a certain spot*. This was no common meeting; they came to fight, and they met in one place as the scene of action. “They that sanctify themselves in gardens, behind one tree in the midst, eating the abomination, shall be consumed together,” Isa. lxvi. 17. The LXX. add ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, “in one place;” and by this they only more forcibly express the sense of the Hebrew, “These idolaters shall be consorted in Tophet; tho’ “their abominable mysteries were performed in secret “companies, or individually, they shall all be associated in punishment, and exposed together,” ver. 24. In the New Testament we read, Acts ii. 1. that when the day of Pentecost was fully come, the disciples “were “all with one accord in one place.” Here the notice is proper—the occasion was remarkable, and the Christian dispensation being then only to commence, distinct congregations had not been formed. The same is obviously the reason of repeating the intimation, ver. 44. “All that believed were in one place, and had all things common.” They remained at Jerusalem, unwilling to disperse or separate from one another, and the fellowship of the apostles. For some time too, ere the church was reduced into order and the proper arrangements made, they resorted to the usual place of Jewish worship, the temple; and to shew their unity in the faith, assembled together in one part of it, the area of Solomon’s porch, ver. 46. The only remaining instance is, 1 Cor xiv. 23. “If the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned or unbelievers, will they not say ye are mad?” This is a supposition made for the
_____
* 2 Sam. ii. 13. Sept. version.
[p. 96]
purpose of effectually exposing the abuse of spiritual gifts, particularly of tongues, which obtained among the Corinthians. He would have them figure to themselves “the whole church” met together, something which they did not witness every Lord’s day, and then consider what effect the conduct which prevailed in their several congregations, and which in these smaller meetings might be less glaringly absurd, would have in such an assembly. As if he had said, “What sort of appearance to the ignorant or infidels would it have, if you were all gathered into one place, and the whole assembly were to engage in a confused clamour of different languages? would they not take you for a convention of maniacs?” Had he referred to their usual meetings, there had been no occasion for specifying “the whole church,” nor would the question have been put as it stands; it would have been, Do not the unlearned and the unbelievers think you are mad? If indeed the whole church usually met in one place, the appeal to imagination was quite unnecessary, and the sentence as laid, is rhetorically viewed improper, if not inexplicable. But that the argument is hypothetical, for the sake of striking the mind more forcibly with the absurdity of their conduct, is evident, not only from his using the hypothetical particle if, but from his farther (for the same end) supposing them all endued with the gift of tongues. We perceive then a reason for the ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό.—What the apostle had stated in this hypothetical form he applies to their particular church meetings, ver. 26. in regard to another abuse; but there he does not use the phrase. He simply mentions their coming together; “When ye come together, every one hath “a psalm,” &c. This was the actually existent case.
[p. 97]
To return now to the passage, 1 Cor. xi. 20. the words, according to what has been stated, intimate, that the Corinthians did meet in one place for the celebration of the Supper; and that their meetings for this end were of a general nature, a kind of solemn convocations. These behoved to be only occasional. If the Christians in that quarter were so numerous that they could not all meet in one place for stated worship, if they composed several congregations which behoved to meet separately on the first day of the week for such worship, and yet are said to come together into one place to eat the Lord’s Supper, the Sacrament could not be a weekly observance among them*.
The question may recur, ‘The Christians at Corinth were so numerous that they could not all meet for stated worship in one place, how then were these general occasional meetings effected? how got they together into one place to eat the Lord’s Supper?’ The answer is simple. It was not necessary they should all communicate at one time; it might be impracticable. The reasoning of the apostle in chap. x. does not imply that they did, and it holds good though they did not. But such was the regard shewn to the design of the ordinance stated in our third con-
_____
* When there is nothing particular in the case, the preposition σὺν, expressive of association, is considered as sufficient. “Where two “or three are gathered together in my name,” &c. Matt. xviii. 20. See Acts i. 6. x. 27. xix. 32. xxviii. 17.
Dr CAMPBELL supports the view of the communion of the primitive churches stated above. According to him the churches which sprung from that which had been first planted in any district, joined together at the mother-church in holding the Supper. But he places the origin of this usage to the age that succeeded the apostolic; and he seems to do so, merely for the sake of giving a plausible account of the formation of parishes.
[p. 98]
clusion, that rather than this design should be overlooked or defeated, general meetings were held for the celebration of the Supper, not always we apprehend, at the mother-church, as if it had been an acknowledged cathedral, but in routine, that while as many as could joined on each occasion, all might have an opportunity afforded. The several congregations would thus successively enjoy the privilege in their respective places of meeting.
These convocations were a church, or church-meeting; for coming together into one place, ver. 20. may be considered as of the same import with coming together in the church, ver. 18. The apostle however by changing the phrase when he comes to speak of the Supper, evidently alludes to something peculiar in the mode of its observance, which rendered the disorders he meant to reprove most glaringly improper. Let us mark how he brings forward the reproof, and by the introduction of new terms carries it out to the utmost extent. His design was, not only to condemn the irregularities which obtained, but to expose them in such a manner that they might be condemned by the Corinthians themselves. For this end he tells them, that according to the accounts he had received, the divisions which operated in private among them, to the marring of peace and edification, had even been manifested in their public assemblies. “You come together,” says he, ver. 17. “not for the better, but for the worse.” On this he would fix their attention. To exhibit still more impressively the condemnable nature of their conduct, he notes particularly the kind of assembling thus marred and perverted, ver. 18. “When ye come together in the “church,” even in church-meetings for the service of God, where a very different temper should appear,
[p. 99]
“there are divisions among you,” so I have heard, “and I partly believe it;” though willing to judge charitably, there must be some ground for the report. Nor was it merely in their ordinary church-meetings he had reason to fear such divisions productive of disorder appeared; their operation behoved to extend even to solemn convocations held for the purpose of shewing conjunctly the Lord’s death; and it did so, ver. 20. “When therefore ye come together into one “place,” such being the state of things among you, even when ye meet with the express design of manifesting your unity in the ordinance of communion, “this I declare is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,” it cannot be; the design of the ordinance, a design which you profess to have in view, is defeated; and it is in fact set aside, “for every one taketh before other,” or without regard to his brethren, “his own supper.” This was the fruit of their divisions; they might as well have had no public social meeting at all, let alone a general one by their coming together into one place. The absurd notion they had formed of the Supper favoured their state of division. They had supposed it an institution similar to the collation-suppers in use among the Greeks. These were a kind of entertainments intended to promote social intercourse and conviviality, without putting any individual to great expence. A number of persons met in one place to feast together, each brought his own provision with him, the rich what was suited to their dignity, the poorer such as their circumstances could afford; and each took his own respective supper, while they enjoyed one another’s company and conversation*. The ac-
_____
* HARWOOD’S Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 23—28. where the authorities are produced.
[p. 100]
count of the manner in which the Lord’s Supper was held by the Christians at Corinth, exactly agrees with this description. Its declared purpose for promoting communion might at first occasion the mistake; and the ease with which it could be kept, in the manner of the feasts referred to, without direct testification of cordial fellowship by “partaking of one bread,” might afterwards, in the state of division which obtained, confirm the practical error. But the banquets, or collation-suppers were only occasional, they were general meetings of friends, and sometimes in one house, and sometimes in another, that a routine of social intercourse might be kept up. Had the Lord’s Supper, (so styled by the apostle, especially in contradistinction to these suppers,) been a part of stated worship, in which each congregation kept by itself, the Corinthian converts could scarcely have supposed any such resemblance between it and their banquets, as would have led them to assimilate its celebration, and thus degenerate from the original form of observance.
Still perhaps the question may be put, ‘Where have we any account of general meetings, in which several congregations might be said to convene? Let it be shewn that a multitude of Christians who ‘could not be supposed to meet in one place for stated worship, might occasionally come together. Are there any instances on record?’ We may appeal at least to three. The first is in the 6th chapter of the Acts, where the twelve, we are told, “called the multitude of the disciples unto them,” or held a general meeting on a subject of common concern—the choice of deacons for the service of the whole church. An early provisionary display of the unity of the visible body of Christ took place in the community of
[p. 101]
goods. The appointment of seven general office-bearers for the distribution of the common stock, followed up this display, which had been properly owing to the exigencies of the time. An occasion for that appointment was afforded in Providence. The Grecians, or Hellenists, complained that their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. It is natural to suppose these Grecians and the Hebrews, had distinct places of worship, each class one or more. There must at any rate have been several congregations by that time, which, though they might not be fully organized, met separately for the stated acts of public worship. It is noticed, ver. 1. of the chapter, that “in those days the number of the disciples was multiplied.” We read in chap. iv. 4. of five thousand; and in chap. v. 14. after the affair of Ananias and Sapphira, we are told “believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.” There had been still farther increase, and these are styled believers or disciples, church-members; opportunity was doubtless given to others to attend their worship as hearers*. They could not therefore all meet in one place for the stated observance of the Sabbath in public religious service, nor was it necessary, having twelve apostles among them. A general meeting however was called, vi. 2. and the business laid before them, ver. 3, 4. To constitute this meeting, it was not requisite that all should attend; a number of both classes, Grecians and Hebrews, or from each congregation, by that time probably seven, might be sufficient, and would form a general convocation. The choice mentioned, ver. 5. might be made in the different congregations, and the
_____
* Chap. v. 13. 1 Cor. xiv. 23, 24.
[p. 102]
names given in to the apostles at another meeting, when the persons were presented for ordination, ver. 6. Matters being thus comfortably settled, new additions were made to the number of disciples, ver. 7. et seq.—The second instance is recorded, Acts xv*. The apostles and elders came together to decide in a certain cause, and the multitude is said to have attended, ver. 12.; this multitude is styled the whole church, ver. 22. who though they took no part in the discussion, according to what is stated in ver. 12. yet by their silence, or perhaps some testimony of acquiescence, shewed their consent to what was done. Besides the official men who came together to consider the cause, there were others present who being endued with supernatural gifts, might have spoken
_____
* Even chap. xiv. 27. might have been adduced as an instance. Paul and Barnabas, when they returned “to Antioch, whence they “had been recommended to the grace of God, for the work which “they fulfilled, gathered the church together, and rehearsed all that “God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of “faith to the Gentiles.” It was no common occasion, and an extraordinary meeting was held. For a summary of the clear and convincing evidence that the church at Antioch must have consisted of a plurality of congregations, see Vindication by WHYTOCK, p. 9, 10. The passages appealed to are Act xxi. 20, 21, 24, 26, 30. xiii. 1. The account of the success of Paul and Barnabas, was probably given in at a general meeting to those by whom they had been missioned and commended to the grace of God. This meeting was publicly advertised, that all of the people who chose might attend, and hearing, might rejoice for the consolation. Another similar meeting is mentioned, xv. 30. only in this, as relating to their own cause, the multitude were more immediately concerned; they were accordingly called together, and to them the decrees of the apostles and elders were read. It is not necessary to suppose that all attended, but those who did would soon spread abroad the happy issue to which matters had been brought. It is observable that the usual phrase in describing these general meetings is, “the multitude were called together,” denoting a large and indiscriminate assembly.
[p. 103]
had any thing been revealed to them; but all acquiesced in the sentence of James*. Probably an opportunity was given these brethren of speaking if they chose, and their not differing or dissenting from the apostles and elders, formed an additional proof that the sentence was the mind of the Spirit. It was indeed in that controversy, a great object gained to have the acquiescence of the Jewish converts, as the decision affected their communion with the Gentiles; it was the decision of a practical cause, and of one that bare on the law of Moses, in regard to which the most prudential plans of procedure behoved to be followed. Though therefore the multitude were not “called together,” as in the former instance, since this in the present case would have recognized them as judges, yet their attendance was of importance. The meeting accordingly was public, an opportunity was given to all who could to attend, the concourse was great; and the apostles, and elders, pleased to find that in this delicate cause their decision met with general approbation, notified this to the Christians at Antioch, as a circumstance that ought to have its own weight in conciliating brotherly love. The third instance to which we refer, is mentioned Acts xxi. Paul the minister of the Gentiles, on his arrival at Jerusalem, met with the apostles and elders, ver. 17, 18. They informed him, that so soon as it
______
* Though the extraordinary spiritual gifts which obtained in the first age might authorize any who possessed them to preach, yet even in that age the line of distinction seems to have been clearly marked in the subject of government, between those who were merely qualified by such gifts for preaching or exhorting, and those who were regularly ordained office-bearers in the church. Compare 1 Cor. xiv. 29—32. with Acts iv. 31. and mark the account chap. xvi. 4.
[p. 104]
was known he was come, “the multitude would assemble,” ver. 22. Reports had been circulated of his teaching the Jews which were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and not circumcise their children. It was a critical case; the converts at Jerusalem were yet weak in conscience, and unable to bear much. It would not be possible to prevent the multitude from attending those meetings of James and the elders, in which Paul might be present, perhaps from demanding some satisfaction as to the reports they had heard. The next meeting the brethren suspected behoved to be public, and they alleged it would be a pity to give any offence. “What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together.” Here James supposes the practicability of general meetings. But in the very address he made to Paul, he cuts off every surmise that the whole body of Christians at Jerusalem could assemble even on such occasions, and much less surely could they meet together for stated worship in one place. “Thou seest, brother how many “myriads,” (μυριαι, thousands at least, ten thousands according to the force of the word; allowing it to be a hyperbole, vast multitudes) “of the Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the law. What is it therefore? The multitude,” (he does not say the whole, it had been impossible,) “must needs come together.” Though he had said “the whole,” common sense would have limited the expression to a large proportion, a very general concourse, as in Luke i. 10. viii. 37.
Recollect now the points which seem to be established: What may be styled a general meeting of the Christians at Corinth for observing the Supper was practicable; the phrase, “they came together “into one place,” unless it be a pleonasm unseason-
[p. 105]
able in a serious admonition, where every expression ought to bear on the case, must denote a meeting of this kind, and according to ver. 18. a church-meeting for public worship, not the attendance of spectators at a court, as in some of the instances adduced; such meetings could be only occasional, as the numbers did not permit them to meet in one place for stated worship, on which all were bound to attend every Lord’s day, and for which separate assemblies afforded a convenient opportunity to all. We conclude therefore, that the members of different congregations, as many as could, joined together at certain times in the ordinance of the Supper, to testify their unity in the profession of Christ; and that for this end the ordinance was dispensed now at one place of meeting, now at another, in routine; sometimes in Corinth itself, then at Cenchrea the port-town, where there was confessedly a church, however small, and the members of which seem to be included among the Corinthians to whom the epistle is addressed.
II. The practice in the first ages after the days of the apostles, ought to be the next subject of review. It would be tedious, however, to detail and comment on the various accounts of ancient usage in regard to the Supper. It is by no means necessary we should. From these accounts we can only gather that uniformity of practice did not obtain even in the age that succeeded the apostolic; and that afterwards different regulations were made by councils and bishops with a view to uniformity, but not always the best. A few remarks may suffice.
The very names of the New Testament feast in ancient times, κοινωνια “the communion,” which may be said to be scriptural*, and συναξις “the gathering to-
_____
* 1 Cor. x. 16.
[p. 106]
gether,” taken in connection suggest the mode of observance already stated from the sacred records. It was styled the Communion, as manifestative of the fellowship of Christians in faith and profession. Synaxis was a term first used, according to some, to denote the Christian congregations, and distinguish them from the Jewish synagogues in speaking about them*. It came soon after to be appropriated to the Supper, which was styled the Synaxis, by way of eminence. And why, unless because in it some peculiar gathering together took place? If it still was in some places, as it had been at first, an ordinance of sacred convocation, as the word means, the name once attached to it, though but in these places, would soon become common.
Pliny’s letter to Trajan has been appealed to as an evidence that the Sacrament was dispensed every first day of the week†. This letter, it should be recollected, states the account which the Christians gave of themselves and their worship in a time of severe persecution, when the free exercise of their religion was under many restraints. But it ought not to be taken for granted that the Sacrament mentioned in the account was the Lord’s Supper. The name sacrament does not appear to have been then used among Christians in the application it afterwards obtained to the seals of the covenant. Though it had, Pliny was a heathen, and could not be supposed to adopt the technical language of the Christians, in describing their worship to his master. The Christians who gave the account were not Romans, and to them the word
_____
* CASAUBON. Exercit. xvi. in Baron. § 42.
† “Affirmabant hanc fuisse summam vel culpæ suæ vel erroris, “quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire,—seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent,” &c. PLIN. Epist. ad Trajan. lib. x. ep. xcvii. [“They declared that the whole of their fault, or error, amounted to this: that they were accustomed to assemble on a stated day before daylight, and to bind themselves by oath, not to commit any wicked deed, but rather to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery, etc.”]
[p. 107]
must have been foreign; his letter is a Latin translation of their account. Sacramentum was with the Romans, the name for their military oath, because among that warlike people the administration of it was a rite of their religion, a sacred ordinance. In process of time it came to signify an oath of any kind; and it is evidently used by Pliny in this general sense, “They bind themselves sacramento in an “oath.” The Lord’s Supper neither implies, nor exacts, nor imposes an oath. The words of the letter are rather descriptive of a species of covenanting. In those perilous times the Christians had recourse to every proper mean for their own establishment, and for strengthening one another’s hands. Compelled to meet secretly, or as they could get opportunity, they were wont to engage in some vow to abide faithful and avoid the pollutions of the world, pledging themselves to one another to stand firm as an host valiant for the truth, and confirming the engagement with an oath. This transaction being mentioned to Pliny as a part of their worship, and being also somewhat similar to a military oath, he might style it sacramentum.
Epithets early began to be applied to the Supper, and designations to be used, which though attended with no bad consequences at first, were very improper, and afterwards gave rise to gross errors and dreadful abuses. It was denominated the Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of the altar, &c. Very untenable lan-
_____
* In confirmation of this view, we may appeal to the summary of the letter given by Tertullian in his Apol. cap. ii. ‘Plinius secundus consuluit Trajanum,—allegans nihil aliud se de sacramentis (holy rites) eorum comperisse, quam cœtus antelucanos ad canendum Christo et Deo, et ad confœderandam disciplinam, adulterium, fraudem, perfidiam, et cætera scelera prohibentes.’ [“Pliny the Younger consulted Trajan, stating that he had found out nothing else concerning their sacred rites except that they held assemblies before dawn to sing to Christ and God, and to covenant themselves to a discipline prohibiting adultery, deceit, faithlessness, and the other wicked deeds.”]
[p. 108]
guage and unguarded expressions frequently occur in the Fathers. Cyprian speaks of Jesus ‘carrying or holding himself in his own hands’ at the time of institution: Augustine, of our ‘taking the body of Christ into our mouths, and having our tongues imbued with his blood.’ These and similar modes of speaking might be owing to great respect for the ordinance, but if they did not suggest the idea of transubstantiation, they have tended to cherish it. We must not judge from every expression, of the sentiments of the Fathers; and neither must we from every notice or allusion, reason to the general plan of observance, or form schemes of the universal practice in primitive times. If respect for the ordinance occasioned extravagant commendations and descriptions, it might also produce extravagancies in practice, neither the one nor the other of which are to be our rule of direction. The using of the Creed after the manner of the mason-word and signs, or of the symbola by which the heathen gained admittance to their mysteries*; the mystery that was in fact attached to the Supper; the missa or dismission of the catechumens and of such as were not in membership, ere it was dispensed; these and other things of a similar nature, might be specified as instances. Of rectitude and propriety, antiquity has long been acknowledged to be no infallible test.
It may be said antiquity is appealed to, not in point of authority, but in proof of facts. The very confession admits that deviations from the apostolic plan of sacred observance, as well as erroneous views, might exist in the earliest ages of Christianity. How then shall the practice of primitive times be a true and faith-
_____
* KING’S Hist. of the Creed, chap. i.
[p. 109]
ful index of what existed in the days of the apostles, of what they ordained and meant to be perpetuated in the church? And if it is not appealed to in this light, what end, clear of proposing authoritative example at least, can be served by the proof of facts? Of all veneration for antiquity, this seems ever to be the language, both in regard to writers and customs, “Art thou greater than our father “Jacob, who gave us this well, and drank thereof “himself, his children, and his cattle?” He to whom these words were addressed was both more ancient, and greater in point of authority than father Jacob: And the nature of divine institutions, declarative of their design, that design again requiring a certain mode of observance, the principles on which the apostles proceeded, the plan according to which they evidently laboured to model the church, whether in regard to government or worship,—all these are also both more ancient and of greater authority, than any practices in what is called the primitive age. The apostles, as they wrote for the regulation of the church, took care to record but little of those necessitous deviations from the plan they intended, which were occasioned by circumstances, while they mark the execution of this plan, wherever it rose into view. Ancient historians and fathers had other ends in writing; they often detail peculiarities solely owing to circumstances, and pretend to trace these back to the apostolic age. On their details, instead of marking and delineating the apostolic pattern itself, later historians and ecclesiastical writers build schemes of the original constitution of the church. These historians may themselves be sceptical as to church government and observances, but their readers too often embrace the schemes they have fabricated, and hold them up as models to which
[p. 110]
the church ought to be conformed. It is probable the Christians of the second and third centuries might commit this very mistake themselves. Engrossed with the idea of the spiritual utility of the Supper, and finding that at the erection of the church it had been dispensed in the same place frequently, and in single congregations without the communion of others, yet not attending to the reason in the circumstantial independency of many congregations when first planted, and overlooking the grand end of the ordinance relative to the visible church, they might give into the plans of weekly and of daily communicating.
III. The doctrine of the first reformers, particularly of Calvin, and the practice of the church in their days, has been appealed to.
With Calvin we most certainly agree, that ‘the custom of mere annual communicating, by whomsoever introduced, is a most evident contrivance of the devil.’ But when he adds, ‘Every week, at least, the table of the Lord should have been covered for the Christian assemblies,’ we have already assigned sufficient reasons for stating our dissent from his views. The reformed have learned, and from Calvin too, in verba jurare nullius magistri, to call no man master on earth. If in some instances they have been charged with being more Calvinistic than Calvin himself, or with pushing his views farther than it is alleged he intended, there are others in which they have exculpated themselves, and freely dissented from his opinion. That Calvin did not consider weekly communicating as the only plan for the Christian church, and something required by the nature of the ordinance, is evident from the connection in which the passages quoted are found. Having declared the custom of annual communion an invention of the devil,
[p. 111]
by whose instrumentality soever introduced, he goes on to vindicate Zepherinus from the charge: ‘Since under the frequent dispensation of the ordinance in his age, it seldom happened that all did communicate, and since it was necessary that those who had a right to do so, being mixed with idolaters and the profane, should in some public way testify their faith, this holy man appointed a set day, when the whole Christian people might make confession of their faith in partaking of the Supper. This appointment of Zepherinus, otherwise good, posterity perverted, establishing a law, by which annual communicating was made the minimum of solemn service.’ Here Calvin, in apologizing for Zepherinus, remarks the disadvantage of weekly dispensation. He allows it was found to cherish a spirit of indifference about communicating: Even all the members of the same congregation did not join in celebrating the feast. He expressly approves the Zepherine decree, by which set times were appointed when the ordinance might be observed after the due order, and seems to have considered it as a piece of reformation in that age.—That Calvin should befriend weekly communion may appear surprising to some, while his opinion may be sufficient to determine the minds of others. But the zeal of the first reformers against the superstitions of popery might carry them too far on some points. Fleeing from one extreme they were apt to fall into the other, ere the consequences could appear to correct them. Thus a just indignation at the intolerable yoke of fasts and festivals, days dedicated to saints, to events, &c. in the Romish church, seems to have driven Calvin off his guard, even with respect to the Sabbath: he maintains by far too spiritual views of that seventh part of our time claimed by God, and speaks dubiously of the
[p. 112]
moral obligation of the fourth commandment in regard to the suspension of labour. On this head too he could appeal to the practice of primitive times. The Christians, the more effectually to distinguish themselves from the Jews, did not incline to observe the first day of the week after the mode of the Jewish Sabbath. They were apt to go to an extreme from aversion to the Mosaic system. And why might not Calvin go to an extreme, as on the doctrine of the Sabbath, so on that of communion, from a just hatred of the Romish system, founded on a clear perception of the mystery of iniquity it involved? To this very principle the origin of the Independent scheme may be traced. What was it at first but an extreme, into which some good men were carried, by their aversion to episcopacy and the Romish hierarchy? We condemn those, who, while they levelled at the Antichristian fabric, demolished Christianity itself, and became a nation of Deists. And surely we may discard the artificial devotion, disclaim ‘the example, traditions, and enactments of apostate Rome,’ may make a sufficient remove from all her superstitions, though we do not hurry into enthusiasm, nor establish counter-schemes and regulations as really inimical to the institutions and order of the house of God. That Calvin and others should have fixed upon the Presbyterian plan of government and order, as that appointed by Jesus, while so many circumstances combined to carry them into the opposite extreme from Romish domination; and that that plan should have had such a general reception among the reformed, while the same circumstances, strengthened by new temptations to deviate either to the right or the left existed—must have been owing to serious meditation on the divine rule, and an accurate investigation of the mind
[p. 113]
of Jesus. They were thus, through the good hand of God upon them, taught where to stop, and prevented from tarnishing the glory of their victorious career. We may rather wonder that the instances should be so few, in which they missed the spirit of Presbyterianism, than that any occur.—The words of Calvin, of which such advantage has been taken, are in fact a lamentation over the dismal state of religion under the reign of Antichrist, and the deplorable lukewarmness produced by the enactments of Rome. The decree of the council of Lateran had sanctioned annual communicating; ‘Whence it came to pass,’ says he, ‘that almost all, when they had once observed the ordinance, as if they had discharged their duty for the year, gave themselves no farther concern about the memorial of our Lord’s death. It ought to have been far otherwise; every week, at least, the table should have been covered for the Christian assemblies.’ And who would not prefer even an over-attention to the Supper, to an impious neglect? Who would not rather see a weekly dispensation of that divine institution, than have the service of the church engrossed and debased by a pompous routine of human festivals and superstitious observances? In the first case there would at least be the appearance of some fervour of piety, and of zeal for the honour of Jesus, such as is thought to have prevailed in primitive times, when even daily communions were sought: Spiritual advantage might also have been expected, though all the ends of the ordinance had not been fulfilled. In the other case, what but the honour of saints and martyrs, real or fictitious, seemed to be regarded? how could the blessing of the Lord be expected or desired to a ritual, every way hostile to his will, and by which his ordinances were thrown in-
[p. 114]
to the shade? Under it the spirit of pure religion behoved to languish and expire.—‘But Calvin expressed his decided opinion,—Every week, at least, the table should have been covered.’ Yes; and it was natural on contemplating the scenes of corruption and irreligion before him, to give this decision. The soul is apt to be transported, on such occasions, beyond the bounds which a farther attention to the sacred oracles and a correcting experience would set. Did Calvin ever attempt to establish weekly communion? He was, it is likely, prevented by what he allows in defending Zepherinus, that it was found to cherish a spirit of indifference, as really as the Lateran edict, though not in an equal degree. He saw, probably, that were it established, even in that reforming age, which was certainly not defective in zeal and genuine religion, another Zepherine law would soon become needful. Only four times a-year was the Supper observed at Geneva, and in most of the reformed churches. Calvin himself expresses the same fears with Witsius and other great men who lived afterwards, that a more frequent dispensation might depreciate the ordinance; for there is another passage in his writings which ought to be known, one where he coolly delivers his mind, and when treating directly of church observances: ‘To celebrate the Supper once every month, would indeed be more agreeable to me, provided more frequent dispensation did not produce negligence*.’
_____
* These words of CALVIN are quoted by Bingham e Responsa de quibusdam, Eccl. Ritibus. He states that the Supper was dispensed only four times a year among the Reformed, but thus gives his mind, ‘Singulis mensibus Cœnam celebrare maxime nobis placeret, modo ne usus frequentior negligentiam pariat. Nam dum major pars a communione abstinet, Ecclesia quodammodo dissipatur.’ [“It would greatly please us to celebrate the Lord’s Supper monthly, so long as more frequent use did not produce carelessness. For when the greater part abstains from communion, the Church is, in a certain sense, broken up.”] BING. Orig. Eccl. lib. xv. cap. ix. in notis. However strange it may appear,
[p. 115]
monthly observance was what his judgment approved, but he was afraid a more frequent dispensation might overshoot the mark, and defeat the very design in view.
Since the independent scheme has been developed and displayed its operation, the Reformed have been led to mark other reasons against weekly communion, which do not seem to have occurred to Calvin,—reasons connected with the very nature of the ordinance, and its manifest design in regard to the visible church.