Section V.
James Dodson
SECT. V.
OBSERVANCE OF FAST, THANKSGIVING, AND PREPARATION DAYS.
AMONG Presbyterians the observance of certain days is usually connected with the dispensation of the Supper. This practice has of late been traduced as an unwarrantable human invention, an unrighteous yoke of bondage; nay, represented as hostile to the commandment of Jesus, and a manifest reversion to Judaism.
The days referred to have never been considered as ESSENTIAL to the right celebration of the ordinance. They who befriend them, and among whom they obtain, are not in the habit of condemning others as guilty of profaning the Supper by holding it without them. Nor are they ignorant of the fact, that for
_____
[continued from p. 114] what is styled by the advocates of weekly observance infrequent communion, has ever on reflection been considered as upon the whole most favourable even to the interests of religion. The very men who in some fervour of zeal, have declaimed against it under this title, ambiguous and calculated to mislead, have in cooler moments either partially or wholly come over to its side.
[p. 116]
many ages this Sacrament was observed without any regular attentions to public preparatory service. The law has not yet been made to establish, even by church authority, the necessity of fast, preparation, and thanksgiving days, or to ‘wed these to the Supper,’ as a late author has expressed it. Acts for Uniformity may have been framed, but they were never designed to mark out any particular mode as what ought always to be observed. The propriety and necessity of a general attention to uniformity was what they enjoined; in other respects they were merely recommendatory, and as such, the spirit only of these acts has been honoured in the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. The specific appointment of the days under consideration has always rested with sessions; and the authority of the appointment has not been extended beyond the proper sphere,—to subject the members of other congregations to exclusion from the ordinance for not having joined with their brethren in all the preparatory exercises.
But though the days are not deemed essential, as must be evident both from the principles on which they are appointed, and from the practice of the Presbyterian churches, and though they be not sanctioned by direct divine institution; they are not therefore to be treated as unrighteous impositions. They admit of a strong and sufficient vindication.
I. THEY ARE NOT UNWARRANTABLE: No zealous friend of religion will hold, that the fourth commandment prohibits the dedication of any portion of our time to the Lord, or enjoins to devote the six days allowed us, solely and always to worldly affairs. Freewill-offerings may certainly still be made of our time, as well as of our substance, to the Lord; and such offerings may be made with equal propriety by the church, as by
[p. 117]
individuals. God by claiming only a seventh portion of our time, hath furnished scope for the native operation of heavenly-mindedness; and the voluntary manifestation of religion, in setting apart to his service what he hath not by previous requisition appropriated to himself. And as such heavenly-mindedness might be expected more to prevail under the full effusion of the Spirit of adoption in the New Testament age, the laws of requisition on time, which formerly existed, are withdrawn. God deals with his church, as if now arrived at the state of majority, when like persons who have attained the years of discretion, she is left to act more freely, and of her own accord to discover an attention to the things that are well-pleasing in the sight of the Father. It would ill become the church or her members to take advantage of our freedom from the ancient system of minute arrangements. The liberty now granted is an holy liberty, not a restoration to self and worldly pursuits, or to indifference and carnal ease in regard to our duty. We are left free as to the express divine settlement of many regulations, that the arrangements adopted, the seasonable employment of authorized means, and the intelligent discovery of attention to the mind of God, may afford on the face of the Christian world an illustrious display of the full effusion of the Holy Ghost, particularly as the “Spirit of wisdom and prudence, and of the fear of the Lord.”
Here we are told, ‘that not the dedication of time even by the church, but the connection established between the days in question and the ordinance of the Supper, is the ground of offence.’ No evidence sufficient to prove the connection unwarrantable has yet been adduced. The constancy of it may have given rise to mistakes with some. For these, how-
[p. 118]
ever, no just occasion has been afforded, while the validity of the Sacrament dispensed in various communities, or received by individuals, without the observance of days, has never been denied by those who observe them. The people of the Presbyterian persuasion have no ground for supposing the days are accounted essential, or that the constancy of the practice imports any such idea.—As to the connection itself, it ought to be remarked, that though the Jews were under greater restrictions than we are, by having a system of specific appointments beyond which it might seem they durst not proceed, yet we find them without divine reprehension observing days additional to those God had ordained, and that too in connection with one of their solemn feasts. In the history of the passover kept by Hezekiah and his kingdom, we find that the congregation of Israel kept seven days by way of thanksgiving, beside the days of the feast, and the four preparatory days which were of divine institution. For this God did not testify any displeasure against them. A reasoner, such as some who have lately arisen against the observance of days, would have attempted to confound the good king with “who hath required this at your hand*?”
Let it not be said ‘there is a reverting to Judaism, that ‘by the sacramental days, according to the connection defended, the Christian service is encumbered, ‘and a yoke of bondage imposed.’ The calumny of will-worship has been liberally thrown out. An appeal has sometimes been made to the words in which Paul charges the Colossians with a shew of wisdom, in voluntary sacrifices to which they had no call,
_____
* 2 Chron. xxx. 33. Thomson’s Lett. to Mason, quoted by ANDERSON, Vind. Cant. Dom. Append. p. 310.
[p. 119]
Col. ii. 18—20.; and the censure, “ye observe days,” Gal. iv. 10. has been tauntingly given for a motto on the friends of the presbyterian method. Let any one read the passages, and mark what sort of days it is to which the apostle refers. It must be evident, that, according to the scope in both epistles, attachment to Jewish observances is specially the subject of blame. If the censures are to be transferred to Christian observances, then we must allow “no man to “judge us,” to perplex or fetter our consciences, or call us to any account, even in regard “to the Sabbath days,” (ver. 16. first cited passage.) Thus we shall get more disengaged, and attain the spirituality at which some aim with respect to the Sabbath itself*. But as the Christian church has nothing to do with the divers baptisms of the Jews, some for one purpose, some for another, some by sprinkling, others by washing; so neither with the divers Sabbath-days, nor any other holydays and new-moons of the Mosaic institution, “which,” says the apostle, “were a shadow of good things to come.” It will
_____
* A certain body otherwise respectable in the Christian world, having rejected many arrangements for which the Spirit of wisdom and prudence was promised to the church, as having their foundation only “in the wisdom of men,” speculated a little farther, and found that the common mode of observing the Sabbath itself is Jewish. They attempted accordingly, in their zeal for the privileges of the New Testament state, and as the weak among them were able to bear it, to discard any peculiar attentions to the Sabbath in private. We must beware lest our hatred of Judaism transport us to an unwarrantable length. The Quakers have still more spiritual views of the New Testament state than the Baptists. It is with them the dispensation of the Spirit relieving the church from beggarly elements of every description;—that rudiment of this world about which their spiritualizing brethren contend so much, Baptism itself not excepted.
[p. 120]
not be alledged, that the days kept at the dispensation of the Supper are viewed by us in this light, that they either were appointed, or ever existed, as shadows of good to come. Were any to observe them in this light, supposing it possible, there would then indeed be a reverting to the rudiments of the world, and a subjection to carnal ordinances.—But ‘a yoke ‘of bondage is imposed!’ This language we might expect to hear from a certain class who are ever ready to complain, “what a weariness is it?” not from those who profess to “love the habitation of God’s “house, and the place where his honour dwelleth.” The reasoning of some primitive Christians was very different, and certainly preferable in point of the temper it indicated, to that of our modern opponents of Judaism. These Christians understanding the new dispensation to be the “good thing,” or age of spiritual rest shadowed forth by the Jewish Sabbaths, concluded that God had now to a certain degree consecrated all time to himself, and so far from grudging an occasional surrender of some of the days allowed for secular employments, were for his service pervading the week. A portion of every day was devoted to public worship. Their views might be extravagant, but surely the dedication of a part of our time to the Lord, cannot render the “yoke of Jesus” an oppressive burden to a saint. The church, while she submits to that yoke as imposing a claim even on these voluntary dedications, will always confess it to be “easy and light;” nor will any of her genuine children murmur against her authority, when righteously exerted in compliance with the claim.
We are told, however, by those who press the objection, ‘that the sacramental days are stated, that they are wedded to the Supper, and combined with
[p. 121]
it in all its periodical returns. To join the exercises of fasting or thanksgiving statedly with any stated part of worship, is to disregard the very thing which makes them duty, and to tie down to certain periods what the Bible hath tied to no periods*.’ On this principle the conduct of the Jews deserved severe reprobation, if, as seems to be generally admitted, they annexed to the feast of Tabernacles a stated exercise of thanksgiving in memory of the deliverance from Sennacherib. “On the last and great day” of that feast, not one of the seven days of the feast itself, but the eighth, (Numb. xxix.) the rite of drawing and pouring out water before the Lord, founded on the prediction, Isa. xii. 4. is said to have been performed. But the appointment was so far from being reprobated by Jesus, who came to “sit as a refiner,” that on the last that great day of the feast, he stood and cried, “If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink,” taking the subject of his discourse from the rite then performing, and ap-
_____
* MASON’S Lett. on Com. let. vii. p. 180. ‘By lopping of therefore these redundancies of human fancy,’ this author proposes to attain ‘a more pure and scriptural method of keeping the feast,’ p. 124.—‘You insist, Sir,’ says Mr Thompson in his reply, ‘at great length against our fasts, as being inconsistent with the nature of that duty, because fasting must be only occasional. Your whole reasoning upon this point is founded on a material error, viz. that communicating is a stated duty, which you always take for granted, but never have proved. Give up with this error; allow communicating to be as our Saviour has indeed left it, an occasional duty, and then fasting will be an exercise occasionally suited to that occasional duty. Whenever you prove your stated periodical times of communicating, sanctioned by the authority of our Lord and his apostles, in the sacred oracles, your reasoning will have some consistency, but till this is done, your vain shew of argument is like water spilt on the ground.’
[p. 122]
propriating to himself the prophecy on which it was founded. It is observable too, that though Jesus at the midst of the feast went up to the temple and taught so as to attract admiration, probably taking his subject from the references of the feast itself, yet that discourse is not recorded, whereas the other is preserved. We may put it to the objectors, whether it be either absurd or unwarrantable statedly to connect preparation with the observance of the Supper? If not, as must be granted in favour of at least one species of preparation, 1 Cor. xi. 28, 31. then the question resolves itself into this, Whether fasting be a proper and justifiable mode of preparation? for if the affirmative be proved, the argument from statedly observing a fast previous to the Supper is lost as to all the use it was intended to serve. The constancy of the recourse to this mode of preparation, cannot prove it unwarrantable. But there seems to be some ambiguity in the application of the term stated. We find it often used by the objectors, to denote the periodical recurrence of the fast and thanksgiving days in the presbyterian method, and then the argument is, that they are thus converted into holydays. At other times it bears on the nature of the Supper, as according to the views of our opponents a part of the ordinary public worship of God, and then the argument is, either that the observance of these days moves the Supper from its proper sphere, by rendering weekly communion impracticable, or that the exercises of fasting and thanksgiving, which are extraordinary duties, are moved from their proper sphere, by being connected with what ought to be regarded as an ordinary part of the worship of God. Let us consider the proof of unwarrantableness brought forward in these several ways.
[p. 123]
1. ‘By the periodical recurrence of the fast and ‘thanksgiving days along with the Supper, they are converted into holydays.’ This argument we should scarcely have expected from one who seems to have studied, on this very subject, the catholic controversy, and who is able to quote CHEMNITZ even against Protestants. Yet this is the style of his reasoning, ‘Talk no more to a Papist or an Episcopalian of his uncommanded holy-days: He will reply that you have no objection to holydays, provided they be of your own appointment. Question him not about the fast on Good Friday before Easter Sunday. He will question you in his turn, about your Thursday or Friday fast before, what he would call, Sacrament Sunday. Ask not his warrant from the Bible. He will retort by asking yours. He will produce quite as many, and quite as good proofs for Lent, as you can for your fast-days; and infinitely more examples*.’ This is a pretty bold censure on a certain body of Christians in Scotland, with whom Mr Mason stands intimately connected. It would have been prudent at least to have concealed their Antichristian practice, till either reformation had been effected in a regular manner, or his communion with them wholly dissolved. He had forgotten the conduct of Ham. The pathetic exclamation of David, “Tell it not in Gath, lest,” &c. was not in his mind. But does Mr M. not know that the line of distinction is clear,—that in the case of fast or thanksgiving days, the sanctity of the day or portion of time, rests on the exercises and service to which it is devoted; whereas in the case of holydays a previous sanctity of the day requiring such and such exercises, is supposed?
_____
* MASON, Lett. p. 119.
[p. 124]
This sanctity, which is considered as inherent in the day, or as ever attaching to it in its annual recurrence, arises from its being dedicated to some saint, or commemorative of some great event. But it belongs to God only to hallow a day, or stamp upon it a permanent sanctity, which shall be the reason of our being bound to keep it sacred to him*. Mr M. was not ignorant of this; he has remarked it in a note†. ‘The difference,’ however he apprehends, ‘is merely circumstantial, the principle (on which we and the Papists proceed) is the same.’ This is all the apology for his extravagant assertions. Has he proved that there is any previous sanctity supposed in the Thursday or Friday before the observance of the Supper, (as in the case of Good Friday,) requiring the exercise of fasting; or that the special observance of these days is ordained by an ecclesiastical law? Our defence is simple. ‘In the opinion of Papists and Episcopalians on holydays, the time regulates the duty, as in the Sabbath, both being observed in ‘their periodical recurrence as holy times. But, with ‘regard to the days employed in religious worship, both before and after sacramental occasions, the duty regulates the time‡.’ If humiliation and thanksgiving be judged proper, some time must be allotted for them; and such days must be chosen as shall best suit the relation in which these exercises stand to the Supper. The dispensation of the Supper may be fixed to certain times of periodical recurrence in the different congregations which constitute a body of Christians. But this is merely and properly circumstantial. No Sabbath is held to be more sacred than
_____
* BRUCE, Ann. Sec. ch. ii.
† p. 114.
‡ ANDERSON, p. 312.
[p. 125]
another, or to have a claim beyond others on the commemoration of our Lord’s death. Conveniency, and the accommodation of brethren, must be studied. And can any be so foolish as to imagine, not to say argue, that because on these grounds there is a stated or periodical recurrence of the dispensation of the Supper, therefore the days of fasting and thanksgiving which are judged proper to attend it, are converted into so many holy-days to the different congregations in which it takes place?
2. ‘The Supper pertains to the stated, that is ordinary worship of God. But the concomitant days ‘move it from its sphere. They are unwarrantable, because they render its being observed as a part of ordinary worship, impracticable. If,’ says Mr M. ‘just regard were shewn in this particular (frequency of communion) to the dying precept of our Lord, and all the extra days of worship kept up, no congregation either would or should submit to the burden*.’ Could it be shewn that such frequency of dispensation in the same place, is incumbent from ‘the dying precept of our Lord,’ or any other precept, or even from the nature of the ordinance,—as would be incompatible with the observance of the days, or would render it detrimental to the interests of individuals and society, then indeed we might acknowledge their appointment unwarrantable. There is nothing, however, in regard to the ends for which the Supper was appointed, that requires more than occasional celebration†. And weekly communion in
______
* Lett. p. 99.
† SECT. 2. at the beginning.—The term occasional is obviously used in opposition to stated as denoting what belongs to the common service of every Sabbath. The dispensation of the Supper may be occasional in the sense meant, yet for reasons of expediency fixed to
[p. 126]
particular is, we have seen, not only destitute of scriptural warrant, but contrary to one great design of the ordinance which directs to occasional celebration, and to fulfil which, we shall endeavour to shew, in our second proposition, the observance of the days greatly contributes.
3. Still the objection of unwarrantableness is urged, on the ground, ‘that in connecting fasting and thanksgiving with the dispensation of the Supper, we combine duties that ought not to be combined, and are guilty of a mixture which God never mingled†.’ The exercise of fasting, we might reply, on the day of annual atonement, was as stated as the day and the solemnities of it. This mixture was by divine appointment, and shall we deem it improper? No: But there is no similar appointment, we shall be told, in the New Testament age, and the principles on which the observance of fasts is warranted to us, do not permit the connection we have devised. In this sense there is ‘a mixture which God never ming-
_____
[continued from p. 125] times of periodical recurrence in the several congregations of which a body is composed. It may also be occasional, yet one of the ‘outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption,’ namely, in opposition to extraordinary means, such as those employed in the call of Abraham, or the conversion of Paul. Nothing can be more evident than that our Reformers used the word ordinary, as signifying usual, in the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and other deeds, where it is applied to the institutions of the Gospel. It is by no means descriptive of the qualities of these institutions, or the relation in which they stand to each other. Thus ‘diamonds, gold and silver ear-rings, and cloth of various texture, may be said to be outward and ordinary parts of ornament or dress in some countries; but that there is a very great difference in the qualities, &c. of these things, every person knows.’ See COURTAS’ Let. to the Old Dissenters, p. 62, 63.
† Lett. on Com. p. 97, 98.
[p. 127]
led; for the connection between the Supper and the ‘fast and thanksgiving days, is a human device, and ‘the compound as real an addition to God’s appointments, as human presumption ever ventured upon*.’ Had the connection been established by a law, and made essential to the right observance of the Sacrament, there might have been some ground for the charge. According to the present plan, it can be no more a human device, than the appointment of fasting, by the office-bearers of the church, on any other proper occasion. Nor does ‘our faith stand in the wisdom of men†,’ when they ordain fasts on such occasions as are allowed to warrant them by the word.
The objection, however, proceeds on the idea, that the Supper is not a proper occasion. ‘The Sacrament being an ordinary institution of the Gospel, and which belongs equally to times of prosperity and adversity, can never furnish any special occasion of fasting and thanksgiving‡.’ In this position, the emphasis sometimes rests on the word ordinary, and then the argument is, that the Sacrament being a part of the common service of God, like the preaching of the word, can furnish no call for extraordinary duties. We have shewn that it is, as really as the passover was, a special ordinance, not intended for constant celebration. Nor, as has also been remarked, is there any thing in the standards of our church inconsistent with this, ‘ordinary parts of worship,’ mean in the Confession of Faith, what belongs to the established service of God, independently of providential calls. We are not to wait for some providential call to celebrate the Supper, nor does our
_____
* Lett. on Com. p. 97, 98.
† Ibid.
‡ Lett. on Com. p. 70, 102.
[p. 128]
warrant for keeping it depend on any such warning. But what is there in this to prove, that the ordinance itself may not require preparation, or that fasting may not be resorted to as a proper and warrantable mode of preparing ourselves? Will our opponents deny, that even the Supper, “ordinary” though it be, and not dependent on the dispensations of providence, may yet be resorted to in providential emergencies, as an eminent mean of confirmation and consolation*. Their reasonings on the distinction between ordinary worship, and extraordinary duties, pervert the design for which it was made. That design was solely to mark in the first, what forms the permanent ritual of divine service; in the second, what pertains to voluntary sacrifice, or providential requirement;—not to preclude all connection between the one and the other, nor even in emergencies which call for extraordinary duties, such as public vowing, &c. to prohibit the use of special ordinary means along with these†.
The emphasis, however, does not rest altogether on the word ordinary, and the meaning attached to it. The Supper, as we find in following out the objection, is denied to be a special occasion, on the very ground of its being an ordinance of worship. To do the objectors all manner of justice, we endeavour to
_____
* Mr. M. seems to do so. ‘The duties suited to special occasions, are such as are out of the line of God’s ordinary worship,’ p. 69. But it was a case of special emergency when the Supper was first observed.
† The truth is, if any divine institution whatever may be an occasion of fasting and thanksgiving, we should expect it would be one of those styled ordinary, or which belong to the appointed routine of divine service. Extraordinary duties we might suppose could not well be occasions of extraordinary duty. Yet even here the speculation fails: Public vowing or covenanting, may, abstract from the providential call, require the exercise of fasting.
[p. 129]
extricate from the mazes of their reasoning, the various heads of argument to which they have recourse. These they have provided, like so many posts or strongholds to which they may successively betake themselves in case of a retreat. Should we prove that the Supper does not pertain to the common weekly service of the church, or that the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary duties will not subserve their cause, the point is not gained, we meet the objection in a new form. A broader basis is laid. Providential dispensations alone, we are told, are proper occasions of fasting and thanksgiving. Though it should be granted therefore, that the Supper is discriminated from other divine institutions, yet while it is one, and even in our sense of the Confession and other standards, a part of the established worship of God, to connect such duties with it is held unwarrantable. Thus an objector proceeds, ‘Special occasions are such as are out of the line of God’s ordinary providence. No one surely will call the administration of the Supper an eminent and extraordinary dispensation of providence. You regulate the seasons of fasting and thanksgiving, not by providential dispensations, but by human agreements. You lift yourselves up to the throne of God, and determine for him, instead of allowing him to determine for you, when these duties are proper. If you call us to such duties, and divine providence does not, we cannot enter into their spirit, because the occasion of them does not exist*.’ Calamities either threatened or inflicted are accordingly specified as evident calls to fasting. In them God may be heard proclaiming from heaven, “Sanctify a fast; call a solemn assembly;” Here
_____
* Lett. on Com. p. 69, 83, 102, 103.
[p. 130]
church-courts cannot mistake the will of the Almighty. Let them on such occasions lift up their voice and say, “Prepare to meet thy God, O Israel,” or when in spiritual judgments there appear evident tokens that the bridegroom is taken away, “then shall they fast in those days.”
Are we to conclude, that because fasting is specially incumbent in such cases, it is restricted to them? that because it is absolutely requisite according to the divine will, on awful emergencies in providence, therefore voluntary recourse to it on other occasions must be unwarrantable? May there not be solemn dispensations of grace as well as of providence, and of such a nature, that the warrants for fasting in the one case, or the principles on which it may be resorted to, apply to the other?—1st, Fasting pertains to the mortification of sin. It is an eminent mean to be occasionally employed for promoting this spiritual exercise, which is always incumbent, though calamities should neither be threatened nor inflicted*.—2dly, Our Lord supposed its continuance as a mode of worship subservient to mortification, when in Matth. iv. 17. he gave directions about the manner of observing a fast: “When ye fast, be not as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance,” &c. The fasting of the Pharisees is evidently meant. Now, though the Jews fasted in prospect of the coming of Messiah, our Lord cannot refer to the continuance of the exercise on this ground. The Messiah being come, it was in his view, like putting “new wine into old bottles.” But the Pharisees also considered the exercise as a mode of voluntary service, and affected a shew of mortification†. The words of Jesus imply the continuance of the exercise
_____
* 1 Cor. ix. 25–27.
† Luke xviii. 12.
[p. 131]
in this light, but according to its truth, and without the ostentation which disgraced it. That continuance is remarked, 1 Cor. vii. 5.—3dly, Fasting pertains, not solely to the bewailing of public or personal calamities, but to the seeking of favours at the hand of the Lord. These two purposes may often be combined, as in Dan. ix. 3. Matt. xvii. 21. But in the case of Cornelius, we find fasting employed solely with a view to a favour, some want of which might be felt, Acts x. 30.—4th, There are examples of fasting in regard to the performance of some duty, and to implore the presence of God in it, Esth. iv. 8, 16. During the patriarchal age, we have no specific notice of fasting. An equivalent preparatory exercise, however, was enjoined by Jacob on his household, Gen. xxxv. 2, 3. Even our Lord’s fast in the desert, whatever other great ends were in view, may be considered as a preparation for the public service on which he was about to enter, and for the solemn “approach he had engaged his heart” to make unto God in his sufferings and death. We may reason from his example in a general way, to the propriety of fasting in prospect of solemn service, without approving in the most distant manner, the commemoration of his fast by a similar one, without pretending to imitate its duration, or supposing we ever can be in the same circumstances with him.—Various other cases of fasting might be produced, as when under great spiritual languor, when in imminent hazard of being ensnared in some sin, when already entangled, and endeavouring to escape, &c.* We adduce only another instance from scripture history, Acts xiii. 2, 3. The prophets and teachers of the church at Antioch, “ministered
______
* BOSTON’S Memoir relative to Fasting.
[p. 132]
to the Lord, and fasted.” Public calamities, or abounding evils in that church, were no more the grounds of their fasting than of their ministering to the Lord. If we may judge from what followed, they had engaged in this service with a view to success in their labours, and to the opening of a great and effectual door for the calling of the Gentiles: “As they ministered and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” These two were accordingly ordained. Though supernaturally called, church-order was not to be neglected in regard to their mission. This ordination to missionary labours was also attended with fasting; “When they had fasted, and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.”
It will scarcely be pretended, that all the occasions of fasting specified above, are to be placed to the account of providence. The instance of Jacob’s commanding his house to sanctify themselves, which, tho’ there might not be an abstinence from food, amounts to the import of the duty, must be deemed an exception. A solemn eucharistical service was in view. Our Lord’s fast, according to the principle laid down, for its application to the subject in hand, must also be excepted. And particularly, the general use of fasting as subservient to the mortification of sin, or a mode of seeking the countenance and blessing of God on any undertaking, even in the discharge of duty.—As to the rest, we know it will be alledged they were special occasions, for though they pertain to the dispensation of grace, yet they were out of the line of God’s ordinary providence, under which particular managements even of the dispensation of grace, are to be considered as falling. Far from contesting this
[p. 133]
doctrine, we rather wish to be explicit upon it, because it is often supposed sufficient to set aside our reasoning from the instances adduced, and others of similar nature, whereas, to a candid enquirer, it will not appear to affect that reasoning in the smallest degree. In the Shorter Catechism, both the covenant of works, and the dispensation of the covenant of grace are classed under God’s works of providence. The term is used in a very general sense. Particular managements of the dispensation of grace, as to times and seasons, and remarkable effects, we do not hesitate to ascribe to providence, or the peculiar administration of Jesus Christ. Such are copious effusions of the Spirit, the opening a great door for accessions to the church, particular revivings, &c. Such too is the sad degeneracy and defection into which a church may be allowed to fall. These are special occasions; fasting becomes proper under the circumstances of the latter kind, or with a view to the former.—On this very ground the defence of our practice were easy. The dispensation of grace is conducted by means of divine ordinances. We are not to expect revivings, or eminent demonstrations of divine favour and love to the church, in a miraculous style, nor even as certain events may be brought about in the government of the world, according to the common idea of providential interposition. Rather we are to look for such special interpositions in behalf of a church or congregation, through the blessing of God on the ordinary institutions of grace. It is usually by eminent countenance granted to these, he crowns a people with great spiritual prosperity; and, even when the interpositions of relief from peculiar degeneracy may not be needed, elevates to a state beyond mediocrity in Christian attainments. Now, if there be any ordinance distinguished above others,
[p. 134]
as adapted to these ends of divine manifestation, any ordinance that seems to promise a visitation, which shall be as “the beginning of months” to many, and “as life from the dead,”—may not this ordinance, according to the prospect it affords, be warrantably viewed as a special occasion of fasting and prayer? While the sovereign managements of Jesus affect the dispensation of grace in its ordinances, and the state of the church by means of these, the idea, that special occasions pertain to providence, though admitted in its utmost latitude, can never be made to prove the unwarrantableness of observing a fast previous to an ordinance of established worship, merely because such an ordinance does not itself form what may be properly called a dispensation of providence.
But we do not rest here: The design for which the instances of fasting were adduced, was to mark the general principles on which that exercise proceeds, and may warrantably obtain. Allowing then, that in these instances, the grounds of the fasting displayed themselves only in certain special providential circumstances, yet surely if the same grounds, when once ascertained by an induction of facts, shall be discerned in, or in regard to some ordinance of grace, that ordinance may warrantably, and abstract from any expectation of uncommon interposition, be viewed as itself affording a proper occasion of fasting and prayer. Let us mark the grounds of the duty, and then apply the argument.—From the instances adduced we learn, that fasting may properly obtain, even in a peaceful and prosperous state of affairs. Under no such state hitherto has the kingdom of our Lord been exalted to its predicted triumph in the latter days, or attained universal extension. With a view to this, “prayer “shall still be made for him;” and why may it not
[p. 135]
be connected with fasting, as among the disciples at Antioch? This exercise is, we perceive, a part of divine service that ought ever to be kept alive. It is a mean of removing our indisposition for other duties to which we may be called; a method of seeking after the Lord, to obtain his presence or his aid in cases where we are peculiarly apt to mismanage; a way of desiring more abundant communications of his grace, greater success to his work, rich manifestations of his glory, personal or social favours. It is to be resorted to as eminently subservient to the mortification of sin. Joint confession of guilt, and social evidence of concern about expiation, publicly testified as among Israel on the day of atonement, tend much to the glory of God, as well as the promoting of sanctification. While the exercise occasionally engaged in, is manifestative of proper regard to the great ends of the permanent dispensation of grace, and its effect among a people, even though unpressed by any calamity, the solemnity of some approach to God particularly warrants it.—Our argument is then, If fasting be proper on account of such reasons, or for such ends as these, and if they shall attach to an ordinance of grace, the exercise may warrantably obtain with a view to that ordinance. There seems to be only two ways of evading the conclusion; either, 1st, By denying that it is possible for such grounds to attach to an ordinance of grace; or, 2dly, By maintaining, that, tho’ they should, yet its being an ordinance sets them aside from being in that case warrantably considered as occasions of fasting. But the reasons or ends we have mentioned are of a very general nature. It can never be proved that they can have no existence but in regard to special circumstances of providence. And by what means shall it be demonstrated that it is solely
[p. 136]
in regard to such circumstances they ought to be viewed as warranting a fast? that particularly, tho’ attaching to an ordinance, yet its being an ordinance changes their bearing on our duty, and precludes us from fasting? To demonstrate this, it must be shewn, that to connect fasting with any part of the established service of God, is a thing which no other considerations can justify, that is, a thing in itself absolutely sinful. Here is the last resource. It is indeed the true spirit of the objection under discussion, and what the objector ought to have explicitly stated and supported, instead of amusing the minds of his readers with plausible reasonings about providence and special occasions. But if the connection be criminal in itself, why has it not been expressly prohibited by God? Why, since individuals and the church are left to act voluntarily in this matter, did he not guard us as to the species of cases to which the reasons for fasting ought to be restricted, and prohibit all attention to these, except in providential circumstances? Nay, why did he himself form a connection between fasting and an ordinance of established worship in the Jewish church, the solemnity of annual atonement? nor only in the Jewish, but in the Christian church, as in the case of ordination? This last is not indeed simply an institution of worship, but it belongs to the established order of the church, and is a solemn transaction, in which service is performed to God. We find it connected with fasting at the mission of Paul and Barnabas, and in ordinary cases, Acts xiv. 23. Our Saviour himself, at least watched, denied himself the refreshment of sleep, and spent a whole night in prayer, before the ordination of his apostles, Luke vi. 12, 13.*
_____
* The Author has enlarged on fasting, because that exercise seems
[p. 137]
IT is enough on our first proposition, to have shewn, that the days, or the exercises performed on these days, are not unwarrantable, as they are not foreign to the liberty of the New Testament state,—do not impose a yoke of bondage,—infringe not on the simplicity of the Christian system,—establish no holydays,—are not incompatible with the requisite frequency of communion,—do not connect duties incapable of connection, nor misplace certain parts of holy obedience, contrary to the will of God, whether expressed in precepts, indicated by example, or learned by just conclusions from his word.—The way being thus clear, should it be proved, in passing to the positive part of our defence, that there is, in the LORD’S SUPPER, either according to its nature or design, what may be deemed sufficient ground for the exercises in question, the appointment and observance of the days will be justified; this shall be the business of our second proposition. Should it appear farther, that, beside what appertains to the ordinance itself, there are in the word certain intimations relative to it, from which the propriety of such exercises may be gathered, our vindication of the plan will be strongly confirmed: to these intimations we shall attend in the third proposition; and then in the fourth, we may consider the argument in favour of the plan, from the present state of the church.
II. As there are neither prohibitions nor principles to deter from the observance of the days in connection with the Supper, so that we are free to appoint and keep them, if sufficient reasons can be discerned,
______
[continued from p. 136] to be chiefly objected to, and because the same reasoning is applicable to thanksgiving.
[p. 138]
—there are such reasons in regard to the ordinance itself.
When we speak of reasons or grounds of fasting and thanksgiving, it is always supposed they attach somewhere, either to providential aspects or events, or to seasons and modes of divine service. It is only thus we can be furnished with a special occasion, and without this, no court can be vindicated in making appointments or requiring observance. Such an occasion the Supper is held to be, as an ordinance of great spiritual utility, and of peculiar solemnity. The observance of the days also contributes to a fulfilment of its design, as the grand ordinance of fellowship and public profession. We revert here to the view given and supported in the preceding sections; for the plan of dispensation is so consistent in all its parts, that the same principles which vindicate it on the head of frequency, justify it also on that of the days.
The object is not to prove such a call for fasting and thanksgiving as would render these exercises indispensably necessary to the due administration of the sacrament; but solely to shew, from the nature and design of the ordinance, that there is a propriety and expediency sufficient to vindicate their appointment. So far from pleading express precept to render them essential, we do not regard the Supper even in the same light with calamities, or those great events in providence, which, taken in connection with the word, may be considered as the voice of God directing to, and positively requiring the exercises mentioned. The opponents of our plan, ought to have understood the precise principles on which that plan is conducted. Had they done so, fair-dealing would have narrowed greatly the sphere of their argumentation. They have often ‘erected a man of straw,’ for the pleasure of
[p. 139]
gaining, or seeming to gain an advantage. We shall hear one: after he has demolished what was never maintained, by a sly insinuation about wresting the Scriptures, talk big in behalf of these sacred oracles, and enjoin us to remember, that as they are ‘the sworn ‘witnesses of the King eternal, we must beware how ‘we order them to the rack*.’
A difficulty which seems to occur at the outset, and to be founded on the terms of our proposition, may afford an opportunity of stating precisely the object in view. It may be said, You regard the Supper itself as a special occasion; now as it can never alter its character, it must always be so, and consequently by its very nature must render the exercises of fasting and thanksgiving so indispensably necessary, that to omit them in any instance would be a crime. There is a distinction, we reply, even among special occasions. In regard to some, fasting is suitable and seasonable; while in regard to others, besides being suitable and seasonable, it is absolutely requisite: we reckon the ordinance of the Supper to pertain to the former, emergencies of providence to the latter. In the one case, fasting is warranted as of the nature of a voluntary service; in the other, the warrant, seconded by the voice of providence, amounts to a positive requirement of the Lord. And where public fasting is concerned, sessions in the first case may call on the people under their inspection to engage in the duty; in the second, their liberty is controlled, they must call to it: but in both, while they cannot be said to overstretch their authority, they have a claim to obedience†.
_____
* Lett. on Com. p. 67.
† The same has been the doctrine of the Reformed on public vowing, and on the arbitrary connection between an oath and such vowing. Mr M. could be no stranger to it.
[p. 140]
The question is then, Is the Lord’s Supper an ordinance, in regard to which, fasting, preparation, and thanksgiving may be deemed suitable, seasonable, and proper? That it is, we argue,
1st, From its distinguished character as an ordinance fitted for eminent spiritual utility. We take our description of it in this light from an opponent. ‘It is an affecting representation of the communion ‘which believers have with Christ Jesus, and with ‘each other in him. The subject commemorated is ‘that point in which the leading doctrines of revelation concentrate their rays, and where they shine ‘with united lustre.’ Such an ordinance, considering the mode of celebration,—the words, the symbols, the actions, by which it is distinguished from other institutions in the ordinary dispensation of grace, must be peculiarly calculated for the confirmation of faith, and the strengthening and promoting of fellowship with Jesus, and with one another in him. ‘It ‘hath a mighty efficacy,’ says our author, ‘in quick‘ening the graces, and mortifying the corruptions of ‘believers. And in it they are often admitted to near ‘intercourse with the God of the spirits of all flesh*.’ Promising, through the divine blessing, such advantages to individuals, may not the times of its dispensation be expected to be “times of refreshing from “the presence of the Lord,” to a congregation, and to their brethren who associate with them? Can special preparation, then, for such an ordinance, be unseasonable or improper? Rather does not the prospect of it invite to the exercise? Jacob did not know more certainly than we, that God would visit him in Bethel. He believed it, and therefore called on his
_____
* MASON’S Second Let. on Com.
[p. 141]
house “to sanctify themselves.” As a patriarch in that patriarchal economy, he prescribed to them their duty. The approach of the Feast, is a particular admonition to attend to whatever may be a mean of removing our spiritual indisposition, or of mortifying those corruptions, which, by provoking dereliction and impeding communion, might defeat the gracious design of the ordinance. God is every where present, but on certain occasions he is said “to come “out of his place,” “to come down,” to display his presence more strikingly in the government of the world. It is by means adapted to the purpose he does so, for he is still the “invisible God.” Similar is his mode of procedure in the dispensation of grace. Though ever “the glory in the midst of Zion,” there are occasions when he “he shines forth illustriously “from above the mercy-seat,” or propitiatory. Can preparation be less proper for beholding the goings of our God, and our King in his “sanctuary,” and receiving his gracious visitation, than for witnessing the stately steps of his Majesty, “his glorious marching” as the Governor among the nations? The ordinance of the Supper is calculated beyond others, for realizing in the most impressive manner the presence of the Lord, and by the concession of our opponents, has usually been honoured as the medium of signal manifestations. Well, “Thou meetest him, that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways*.”—The renewed enjoyment of such an ordinance, may also be justly regarded as worthy some public testimonial of gratitude to God. Granting that no visible evidences of “a “time of refreshing” should have occurred, we are
_____
* Isa. lxiv. 5. compare lviii. 3—12.
[p. 142]
not thence to conclude that it has not obtained, for the kingdom of heaven cometh not usually “with “observation.” The blessed effects may appear many days after. At any rate we have ever ground to believe, that under a pure dispensation of the ordinance, much spiritual good may be done; and our faith of this, may well be a foundation of thanksgiving to God. Such an exercise will testify our belief in his promise of maintaining the credit of his institutions, according to their respective uses and ends. It will “put him in remembrance,” and shew that we are not unmindful of what he hath given ground to expect. And then, a day of thanksgiving affords an opportunity of directing the people by public discourse, how to display their gratitude in conduct suited to the holy profession they have made. Is the return of the feast anticipated with emotions of gladness similar, nay superior, to those produced by the ancient edict, “O Judah, keep your solemn feasts?” Have we joyed, like the tribes of old, when it was said to us, “Go up to the house of the Lord?”—then surely it must gratify the feelings of the godly, to have an opportunity afforded of “giving thanks to the name of “the Lord,” for the rich dispensation of his grace; of singing to his praise, “how amiable are thy tabernacles,” and saying ere they part, for their friends and brethren’s sakes, “Peace be within thy walls, O “Jerusalem, and prosperity within thy palaces.”—With a view to such blessed experience, and in the faith of a time of refreshing, how seasonable the exercise of fasting! ‘None,’ says a servant of Jesus, while commending the sacramental fast as ‘a laudable ‘practice of our church,’—‘none, according to the ‘method of grace, stand so fair for a lifting up, as ‘those who are most deeply humbled,’ James iv. 10.
[p. 143]
Isa. xl. 4. Matt. v. 4. When a most striking display of the Atonement, and of its blessed effect, access to God, even into the holiest, was to be made to Israel, a solemn public confession of sins was required, attended with fasting. And when the seal of “redemption through the blood of Jesus, even the forgiveness of sins,” is about to be dispensed, may not the people be called to a special consideration of their ways? The more extensive and deeply affecting the views of sin, under which they approach the table of the Lord, the more eager will be the actings of faith on the crucified Saviour, and the more abundant the consolation of atonement. The improvement of the seal of God’s gracious economy, may thus be expected to suit its design better than otherwise. Again, would we have a time of refreshing, and is fasting one way of seeking after the Lord, and expressing an ardent desire that he would “glorify the house of his “glory*?” How proper! how respectful to the grand designs of the Supper! for a people to join together in pleading with the Lord by fasting and prayer, that on such an occasion, as of old at the dedication of the temple, he would fill the house with his glory, and accept the sacrifices of his chosen; or that the Bridegroom may come in an eminent mani-
_____
* See the account of Anna, and others who waited for the Consolation of Israel, Luke ii. 37, 38. compared with Hag. ii. 9. “The “glory of this latter house shall be greater,” &c. The account of the disciples after our Lord’s resurrection, Acts i. 14. “These all “continued with one accord in prayer and supplication,” no doubt for the fulfilment of the promise, “I will see you again,” viz. by that effusion of the Spirit, which was to glorify the New Testament church. And the account of the prophets and teachers at Antioch, who fasted and prayed for an increase of the glory already begun, Acts xiii. 1, 2.
[p. 144]
festation of his presence, may see his disciples again, and cause their hearts to rejoice. Is fasting seasonable and proper in prospect of the marriage of a people to the Lord? Is it a mode of imploring the divine blessing at the organizing of a church, or on the commencement of a fixed dispensation of grace*? Then surely, for the same end, it must be equally proper in regard to those occasions, when the seal of that dispensation is observed among them, when the symbolical exhibition of all gospel privilege, and the visible representation of the marriage-supper of the Lamb takes place. In fine, was it intended for the mortification “of our members which are on the “earth?” it must be peculiarly seasonable. With a view to the celebration of the Supper, we are specially enjoined to “purge out the old leaven.” There is a leaven of “malice and wickedness,” or other unchristian dispositions, which church-courts who are “to “separate between the precious and the vile,” have it not always in their power to purge out by judicial procedure. Yet this leaven may work to the marring of intercourse with God, and of that Christian fellowship, that plenitude of fraternal love which ought to obtain. May not these courts therefore resort to the mean that God has appointed and promised to bless, for mortifying the members of the body of sin even in saints? Are they not warranted to call for a public profession of this exercise, and a genuine endeavour after it, by that people among whom it is their duty to secure, as far as can be attained, the proper observance of divine institutions? The amount of their edict for a fast in this light, is no other than the command of the apostle, which it tends to fulfil,—
_____
* Acts xiv. 23.
[p. 145]
“Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For Christ our passover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”
What have we alledged against all this, by the opponents of our plan? So far as the author knows, only two things. 1st, That in the ordinance of the Supper, there are no special blessings represented and sealed; that is, ‘no blessings appropriated to special ‘occasions.’ This is the argument of the same writer from whom our description of the ordinance was borrowed a little before. Does he then mean to destroy in one part of his book “the things he had “built” in another? Yes: while the fabric shall support the scheme of frequency, it may stand; but if it seem friendly to our plan of the days, it must be demolished. To gain one point, we have large commendations of the Supper; to gain another we find it reduced to a level with other institutions, nay with ‘the craving of a blessing before meat.’—But let us ponder a little his idea. ‘I beg,’ says he, ‘the Christian to point out a single blessing to be supplicated or expected at the holy communion, which he does not, or at least ought not, to supplicate and expect ‘in every approach to God through the faith of Jesus. Till this be done, all that has been, and all that can be said about the specialty of the blessings connected with the Supper, is mere illusion.’ This writer may not deserve to be ranked with those who are “wiser “in their own eyes than seven men who can render a “reason;” but there are instances in his work of bold assertion founded on the illusions of his own mind, which ought to have been repressed. Who
[p. 146]
ever pretended that the blessings represented and sealed in the Supper, are different from those exhibited in the ordinary dispensation of grace? But is the representing and sealing no special privilege? And is it not in various respects “appropriated” to this ordinance, so as to discriminate it, not only from the preaching of the Gospel, but even from Baptism? On this ground, has not the same writer acknowledged, that the Supper is eminently calculated for promoting intercourse with God, and the fellowship of the saints? It has frequently been honoured, suitably to its nature and design, as a special occasion of realizing the blessings of grace, when all the goodness of the Lord has been made to pass before his chosen, and a time of refreshing enjoyed.—2dly, Fasting, it has been said, is proper when there appears evident tokens that the “bridegroom is taken “away,” Matt. ix. 15. But in prospect of the New Testament feast, the joyful commemoration of that event on which all our hopes and spiritual privileges are founded, when called to go forth to meet the Bridegroom, and enjoy the signs of his presence, must be like putting “new wine into old bottles,” a thing altogether incongruous, and detrimental.—Our Lord’s application of the proverbs about new wine and new garments, teaches the impropriety of fasting in seasons of eminent spiritual enjoyment; and thus we may grant the impropriety also of combining that exercise with the celebration of an ordinance specially calculated for manifesting his presence; but to fast in prospect of such seasons, or of such an ordinance, is nowise condemned, rather the contrary. The ancient fast on the day of atonement, seems to have been connected with the feast of tabernacles, and it was held four days before, not during the feast. Our fast is not
[p. 147]
kept on the day of the dispensation of the Supper. Had this been the case, the charge of incongruity might have had some plausible foundation; or it might have been supposed, the cheering exercise, and ravishing attainments to be expected on such a day, would, like the new wine, break through and destroy the mournful fasting frame, if attempted to be superinduced upon them. But fasting, we may remark farther, is not always that sad or mournful exercise which they who make calamities its proper ground seem to imagine. There are diversities of fastings, according to the object in view, all of which might be improper while Jesus was manifest in the flesh, bodily present with his church. Every one who reflects on the inestimable privilege then bestowed in the mission of the promised Deliverer, who considers that in him the Father had given all that could warrantably be desired according to the age and the state of the church, for deliverance, spiritual or temporal, and who at the same time attends to the wisdom of the pre-determined arrangements as to the circumstances of the Jews, and the success of his ministry, arrangements the best suited to the fulfilment of his mission,—every one who ponders these things, must perceive, that fasting could not be sanctioned by Jesus, as either expedient or proper, during the days of his flesh, whether for obtaining a removal of the subjugated state of the people, or some eminent spiritual interposition, or even greater success to his labours. He behoved not to go beyond the extent of his commission, and it had not been warrantable to implore an enlargement of that commission. Every thing was then doing which was proper to be done for the benefit of the church, nay, for the salvation of the Jews from temporal wrath.
[p. 148]
But in prospect of the Saviour’s coming, fasting was both suitable and seasonable. Now this is specifically the fasting to which Jesus refers, “Can the children of the bride-chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them?” They may before, but not when the object is attained, or under the enjoyment of his presence. Considering the exercise as having a respect to the coming of the Messiah, the occasion was removed. Its continuance therefore among the Pharisees, arose from inattention, or rather, wilful blindness to “the signs of the time.” Even the disciples of John had not sufficiently clear views of the character of Jesus, otherwise they had associated with the children of the bride-chamber, and desisted from fasting* But for the disciples of Jesus to have kept up the practice, had not only been incongruous, but a virtual opposition to the claims of their Master, which the Baptist himself admitted†. Is there any thing then in the passage, or application of the proverb about “new wine,” that can be constructed as unfriendly to our holding a fast in prospect of the Supper? Our Lord declares, “The days would come when the “bridegroom should be taken away,” and fasting again become proper. If the words refer to his bodily absence, these “days” will be descriptive of the whole New Testament period; if to spiritual withdrawment, they will be descriptive of one special occasion of fasting, without denying the propriety of the exercise on other occasions. Nay, may we not from this very passage argue the propriety of the exercise, with a view to glorious manifestations of his presence, such as the Supper is calculated to afford, and of which it
_____
* Luke v. 33. vii. 19—23.
† John iii. 28, 29.
[p. 149]
has been honoured as the means*? By organizing a church, or the gift of a gospel-ministry, the Bridegroom eminently comes amongst a people and marries them to himself†. Yet we learn from the practice of the apostles, (Acts xiv. 23.) that fasting, with a view to the realising of this spiritual marriage and its blessed fruits, is not incompatible with our Lord’s discourse on the subject. The relation of the Supper to such occasions has already been stated.
2dly, The preparatory exercises are seasonable and proper, on the ground of the solemnity of the ordinance.—The children of Israel were frequently called upon to “sanctify themselves,” when God was about to descend among them by the symbols of his presence, or cause them approach unto him. We are not indeed “come to the mount that might be touched, that “burned with fire,” that was “encompassed with “darkness and tempest‡.” It will readily be granted, that there was something in all God’s manifestations to Israel in the desert, correspondent to the legal economy, and that “we have not received the “spirit of bondage again to fear.” We still however, as the apostle reminds us, “come to God the Judge “of all;” and in the Supper there is a special exhibition of this character sustained by the Father in “bruising” his own eternal Son, and “putting him “to grief.” Seated at the table of the Lord, we are
_____
* In the absence of the Bridegroom fasting was to become seasonable. Now, when about to depart, he made promise, “I will see you “again;” it was doubtless to be seasonable, with a view to the fulfilment of this promise. But one way, among others, in which it was to be fulfilled, was “his drinking with them of the fruit of the vine new “in his Father’s kingdom.” Compare John xvi. 22. as explained, ver. 14—16. with Matt. xxvi. 29.
† Isa. lxii. 5. See President EDWARDS’ Sermon on this passage.
‡ Heb. xii. 18, 22.
[p. 150]
directly brought under the verification of all that was imported by the legal economy, in regard to the judicial character of Deity. There, while “Christ is “evidently, or vividly, as in a representation of the object*,” “set forth crucified,” and for our sins, the grandeur of the eternal Judge is more impressively and affectingly displayed to our view, than in the whole system of sacrifice, or even on Sinai itself. The apostle in the passage referred to, after stating at large the superiority of New Testament privilege, draws from it a conclusion very different from that which would set aside the idea of solemnity, or discard peculiar attentions to certain parts of our worship. “We therefore,” says he, as if he had been afraid of the inference, that now we have no need to sanctify ourselves, afraid of inconsiderate freedoms, even with the most distinguished institutions of the gospel state, “We therefore receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire.” The allusion is obviously to the case of Nadab and Abihu, Aaron’s sons, who were consumed by fire, for their heedless or presumptuous conduct. The apostle would have us remember, that still God, as he declared on that occasion, “will be “sanctified in all them that draw nigh unto him.”
Another example of the divine regard to solemnity as a ground of special preparation, we have in the case of the passover feast. The solemnity of this institution which rendered peculiar preparation requisite to
_____
* Προεγράφη coram depictus fuit. The Jews had only “the shadow, not the very image of the things,” such as the glass on which we look presents to faith. Shall the exhibition made to us, be accounted less solemn, because clearer, and not like the mysterious shadows, apt to occasion a servile fear?
[p. 151]
its observance, seems to have arisen from its sacramental nature. As a commemorative, and in its typical references, a sealing ordinance, it was distinguished from other feasts of the law. For a stated period God would have the minds of his worshippers abstracted from the world, and fixed on the grand import of the service in which they were about to engage, ere they ascended his holy hill. To this end he enjoined the performance of certain significant rites. Now, on the same principle, even abstracting from the relation the one sacrament has to the other, special preparation must be seasonable and proper in regard to the New Testament feast. It is not less worthy of respect than the former; nor are its nature and references, such as to preclude our honouring it in any peculiar form. The preparation must no doubt correspond to the present economy. In point of time to be spent, we need not, we dare not recur to the yoke of bondage from which Christ hath set us free. And instead of the legal rites, the simple exercises and forms of Christian worship are the only succedaneum allowed us. These however, are equally, nay, in a superior manner calculated to instruct and direct, to abstract the mind from worldly concerns, and elevate the affections to God and spiritual objects. The grounds of the paschal-preparation are not to be ascribed solely to the genius of the law, as if our having received the atonement, rendered any thing similar wholly impertinent and improper in regard to the Supper; for though that preparation in its duration and rites, formed a part of the antiquated bondage, yet, correspondent to what was stated in the preceding paragraph, we may remark the emphatic particle used by the apostle on this subject,—“EVEN Christ “our passover is sacrificed for us;” as if he had said,
[p. 152]
this so far from setting aside the propriety of imitating in Christian observances, the Jewish preparation, should have a contrary effect, “Even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,” so much the more solemn and impressive is the New Testament sacrament, “therefore let us keep the feast; not with the old “leaven,” &c.
Farther, in awful dispensations of providence, is not the solemnity of the manner in which God arises to deal with men, and calls them to meet him, one special ground of the seasonableness of fasting and prayer? We are not surely to be stirred up to these exercises by the working of servile fear, or a more selfish desire of temporal preservation. God by his judgments would impress deeply on our minds, a sense of our guilty conduct, and thus excite to reformation. If the idea of solemnity may have place in regard to calamities, as justifying the call, “Prepare to meet thy “God, O Israel,” may it not also have place to vindicate a similar call by the overseers of the church, along with their invitation, or rather the edict of providence, “O Judah, keep your solemn feasts?” Zion is still like Jerusalem of old “a city of solemnities.” Such she was predicted to be in her New Testament state*. And we may here also observe, that the grandeur of the Judge of all is not less visible, than in dreadful providences, nor our approach less affecting in an ordinance which commemorates the most awful display ever made of his hatred against sin,—against our sins. ‘Yes,’ it will still be retorted, ‘but here ‘the vindication of his character is exhibited as past, ‘and we meet him as the God of peace, in whom we ‘may rejoice through the blood of the everlasting co-
_____
* Isa. xxxiii. 20—24.
[p. 153]
venant.’ And may we not reply, Every believer beholds him in the same light, when he arises to execute vengeance on the earth? “Because thy judgments “are made known, let mount Zion rejoice. The “daughters of Judah may shout. This God is our “God for evermore*.” The persuasion of faith will not on such occasions excuse from the duty incumbent. We must “humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God.” If the view of his character as the God of peace be more clear in the ordinance of the Supper, we have reason to expect our fasting will be less apt to be tainted with that servile spirit which the prospect, or the infliction of judgments, often tends to produce.
In fine, the more solemn the service, the greater on various accounts is the danger of mismanaging; in case of mismanagements, the higher will be the dishonour done to God, and consequently the displeasure provoked, whether paternal or not, must be peculiarly severe. Sin, we know, is capable of many aggravations, from the circumstances in which it is committed. And will any one hold, that there is no difference between failing in attempts at seeking after the Lord, hearing the gospel while under the influence of an evil heart of unbelief, or, let us say, between rejecting the counsel of the Lord, and being “guilty of the body and “blood” of Jesus, by a profanation of the Supper? Great caution is needful: Even saints, it will be granted, ought to exercise a godly jealousy over themselves. Is there then no propriety in joining together to ask of the Lord a right way, and supplicate his favour by fasting and prayer? The exercise is doubtless both suitable and seasonable, such as the overseers of any people may warrantably call for and expect.
_____
* Psal. xlviii. 11. xcvi. 1—8.
[p. 154]
IT may perhaps be said, that, allowing the force of all that has been advanced on the two preceding heads, still the preparatory exercises may be performed in private, without the appointment or observance of any days for the purpose.—This will not be denied. A reasonable suggestion temperately stated, always deserves respect. The thought may occur to a candid enquirer, and it is not without force. Such an one, we would remind, that the defenders of the days never held them to be essential, never maintained an absolute necessity for public preparatory service. There are however considerations sufficient to vindicate the appointment of this, and which will also have their due weight with a person of the temper supposed. He will remark, that in the instances from which we have argued, public preparatory service, on the grounds specified, usually obtained. It was appointed by God himself in the cases of special intercourse with Israel in the desert, of the passover and of the feast of Tabernacles. The fasting too in cases of ordination, which are social concerns, or of calamities, is public. The observance of the Supper is both public and social, discriminated in this character from baptism, though equally a sacrament. Besides the personal benefit to be expected, it promises congregational, and even diffusive advantage. That it may be blessed in its bearing on the public profession of the body, or for the confirmation of brotherly love, or as a season of revival to any congregation, there is, correspondent to these objects, a suitableness and propriety in socially testifying our desires, imploring the abolition of all grounds of controversy, and preparing for its reception. The candid enquirer, will also take into view the many advantages of affording public opportunities for preparation, and call-
[p. 155]
ing the people to improve them. Were it not for these, we have reason to fear, the duty might be greatly neglected. He will consider the regard that the overseers of a church ought to have to the due observance of divine institutions, and the expediency of their taking order by all proper means to secure it, as far as in their power. Public administrations, he will allow, are fit and warranted aid for enabling to discharge aright the preparatory duties, and, as such, when circumstances admit, ought not to be withheld from the people.—But our next observation bears more directly on the publicity of the service, and may therefore afford farther satisfaction.
3dly, The observance of the usual days both suits and contributes to the fulfilment of the great design of the ordinance, as to the visible church. It was one of our conclusions from the institution, nature, and use of the Supper, that it behoved to be intended for such fellowship as might display the unity of the body in profession and privilege*. Now the usual days, so far from militating against that frequency of communicating which according to this design is incumbent, are favourable to it. 1st, The rich dispensation of the Gospel for which they afford an opportunity, has been found to be an inducement to the people to gather together into one place. Many are thus prevented from satisfying themselves with communicating perhaps but twice a year, in their own respective places of worship, and are brought to testify their fellowship with their brethren in the Lord. 2dly, Take the case in another view: Suppose church-members attentive to their duty; although they should need no inducement to seek after the fellowship of
_____
* Sect. ii. Concl. 3d.
[p. 156]
their brethren, yet, if under a spirit of regard to all the ends of the ordinance, the multitude shall gather together, then surely there is a call for a rich and more abundant dispensation of the Gospel than ordinary. If we are “to preach the word in season and out of “season,” it can never be more in season than on such occasions. “When the people are gathered together, the Lord will give them water.” 3dly, By the observance of the days, and the method of dispensation with which they are connected, the communion of the ministry as well as of the people is attained and manifested; their fellowship is publicly displayed, both in the discharge of their functions, and in the solemn act of communicating at one table. The beneficial effects of this to themselves and the church must be obvious. Besides the happy opportunity of profiting each other in private by taking sweet counsel together, and in public by doctrine and example, how much does their joining together in the grand acts of solemn profession tend to confirm the members of the church, and according to the nature of the feast, promote the spirit of harmony and love among them! How striking too, to the world, their joint confession of Christ in this holy ordinance! But let the days be dropt, and then perhaps only one assistant, a mere case of necessity appears; let weekly communion be adopted, and nothing of the kind shall obtain. By the communion of the ministry, the reference of the ordinance to the unity of the body is more completely followed out, than even by the convocation of the people. Besides, the people have an interest in this communion. Not to speak of the results of private counsel, or public example tending to stir up the gift possessed by each, and all redounding to the advantage of their respective congregations,—
[p. 157]
the people have a claim on the occasional exercise of the different gifts God hath bestowed on his church. This is a privilege, which, as far as can be attained, they ought to enjoy. Ministers are not so entirely appropriated to their particular flocks, as not to have a general connection with the body: “Now there “are diversities of gifts, but one Spirit; and there “are differences of administrations, but the same “Lord,” &c. The manifestation of the Spirit is given “to every man to profit withal. For to one is given “by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the “word of knowledge,” &c. But all these worketh that “self same Spirit, dividing to every one severally as “he will. For as the body is one and hath many “members, and all the members of that one body “being many are one body, so also is Christ*.” Never can the communion of privilege with respect to the gifts God has bestowed on his church, be more fitly displayed, than at that feast which is intended to manifest the unity of the body;—a light in which we find it appealed to, in the very words which follow those now quoted. 4thly, The method of dispensation with which the observance of days is connected, has ever had the effect of collecting a multitude of spectators. Now passing the good which may be done by a rich dispensation of the Gospel, under differences of “administrations, and diversities of gifts,” while the impression of the grand solemnity of Chris-
_____
* 1 Cor. xii. 4—13. Though in this passage there be a reference to some extraordinary gifts, this does not destroy its application. The case stated by the apostle is the same as to the gifts which still exist in the church. Those of the primitive age were the manifestation of the Spirit, or sensible evidence that he was come; and he came for this among other ends, as they also indicated, to qualify for the work of the ministry in all succeeding ages.
[p. 158]
tian worship affects the mind, and the followers of Jesus are seen glorying in his cross,—to say nothing of this, the best opportunity is attained of ministers and people jointly fulfilling that great end of the ordinance, which lies in publicly “shewing the death “of Jesus.” How grievously, with respect to this end, did the primitive churches err in their missa, or dismission of all but communicants, when the Supper was to be held! Let us not make even such an approach to their error as weekly communion exhibits, or any plan that would nearly limit the publicity of our confession in this ordinance, to ourselves. If we would shew forth the death of Jesus to the world, if under the banner of a holy profession we would glory in his cross before men, let us adhere to that plan, in following which we may ever expect to be “com“passed about with a cloud of witnesses.” The consequences too on spectators, which are not foreign to the purpose of “shewing the death of Christ,” may redound to the honour of our crucified, but risen Lord, and to the advancement of his kingdom.
Having disproved the unwarrantableness of the connection between the days and the Supper, and endeavoured to shew grounds from the ordinance itself which may justify their appointment and observance,—we add, as a
III. PROPOSITION, That there are intimations of the mind of Christ and his Spirit in Scripture, which favour the practice. We shall not dwell here on the adaptation of various Psalms to our plan of celebrating the New Testament feast; though this has often struck the minds of the godly, and diffused through their exercise a peculiarly pleasing animation, as if our only sanctioned and sacred liturgy, had been de-
[p. 159]
signedly formed to suit the service, and express their emotions*? Nor shall we recur as we might, on a new ground, to the Passover. In considering solemnity as a proper foundation for preparatory service, we appealed to the solemnity of that feast, as one reason of the preparation enjoined; we might now take up the substitution of the Supper instead of the Passover, as an indication of the propriety of honouring it with similar attentions. We only appeal, however, to some things recorded in regard to the ordinance itself.
The apostolic injunction, 1 Cor. xi. 28. is well known, and readily occurs: “Let a man examine “himself; and so let him eat of that bread and drink “of that cup.” This exercise was to have a special respect to the “discernment of the Lord’s body,” and that, not merely in a speculative way, but in spiritual improvement, the former in order to the latter.
_____
* We might specify in their order as adapted to the plan, Psalms xxii. li. xlii. lxiii. lxv. lxxxiv. Some single Psalms seem to recognize the very mode of procedure, as the xxvi. divided into two parts at the 8th verse; others comprise all that pertains to the plan, as if written to describe it, cxvi. But the opponents of the plan will make no account of all this; they can easily construct Psalms adapted to whatever plan they may invent. Our mode is accused of Judaism, and no wonder, they may think, the Jewish Psalms should suit it. As the Spirit, however, has not thought fit to provide a new system of Psalmody, we may conceive he regarded the one already with the church, as sufficiently adapted to every warranted part or mode of worship in the New Testament state. Had even the adaptation of the Psalms suggested the plan, (and it probably had its influence,) this had been no inconsiderable testimony in our favour. The provision in the Psalms has certainly seemed to sanction it, and contributed to its general reception. In the great Hallel, a part of which, it is likely, was sung after the first celebration of the Supper, Matt. xxvi. 30. and of which some portions are beautifully suited to that ordinance, as Psal. cxvi. 11—19. there are yet Judaisms which many cannot digest, and have seemed to ridicule. See Psal. cxviii. 27.
[p. 160]
To enforce the exercise, “the danger of eating and drinking unworthily,” is declared; “he that does so eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.” There may be various ways of partaking unworthily, as to state, exercise, or external deportment; and correspondent inflictions be dreaded. “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.” No doubt the Corinthians had fallen into very gross abuses. From these such a mode of observance as obtains among us, would have tended to guard them. They would not have been in danger of confounding the ordinance, even with their love-feasts, much less with their collation-suppers, common entertainments. The design of the apostle was to rouse them to make the necessary distinction, and to regard the Lord’s Supper as a peculiarly solemn part of Christian worship. Self-examination he particularly enjoined. To follow up his mandate, is one design of our preparation service, and of what has commonly been called Fencing the Tables. The precept could doubtless be obtempered in private; and the terms used by the apostle, may from the circumstances of the case, be considered as bearing on a private discharge of the duty. The teachers of that church, it would seem, had been guilty of the same abuses with the people; all had misapprehended the design of the ordinance, and needed to examine themselves. But it will not be granted that the words, “Let a man examine himself,” necessarily describe private performance, much less restrict the duty to it. They require most particular and personal examination; but this may obtain in public under the ministry of the word; and—considering the wandering of minds little accustomed to survey their own ope-
[p. 161]
rations, the defects of knowledge, the involvements of perplexing cases, the deceitfulness of the heart, &c. better than in private. The aid of their pastors, in an orderly state of the church, may well be expected by the people, and ought to be afforded. When one commits the work to God, and says, “Examine and prove me, try the heart and reins,” does he look for some miraculous influence or effect upon him? No: his desire is to be fulfilled by the word, which is as “a fire and a hammer.” And special countenance is promised to the preaching of the word, for accomplishing all the ends to which it is suited.—The instruction of the people in the nature and grand references of the ordinance, to guard as much as possible against all that may be implied in not discerning the Lord’s body; the more immediate abstraction of the mind from the world; the elevation of the affections, and whatever may tend to excite to self-examination, assist or direct in it;—these are the objects in view by our day of preparation. And we make it a separate portion of time, because to employ the day of fasting on these objects, would be to deviate from its proper design*.
_____
* It cannot fail to be observed, that the opponents of the days, have adopted what has long been the Socinian view of 1 Cor. xi. 28—32. This is by no means an invidious remark. There is no design of insinuating, that the ideas of the Supper coincide with those of Socinians: But in attempting to simplify this ordinance, however strange it may appear, they have found it necessary to take refuge in a notion of discerning the Lord’s body, and of the judgments threatened against those who do not, which cannot be better expressed than in the words of the Bishop of Landaff: ‘Be not terrified by some expressions you will meet with in your common Prayer-book, about being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,’ &c. Then explaining the whole passage as entirely restricted to the misconduct of the Corinthians, he adds, ‘You see how little reason you have to fear you will receive the Sacrament
[p. 162]
Let us next attend to our Lord’s procedure at the time of institution. There were no days observed. It was impracticable. Jesus passed directly from the celebration of the Passover to that of the Supper; his
______
[continued from p. 161] ‘unworthily, in the sense in which St Paul uses that word; or that ‘you will incur the guilt that was incurred by the Corinthians: for you will not commit intemperance at the table of the Lord, nor will you irreverently consider the Sacrament as a common entertainment; but you will with great piety and gratitude remember the death of Christ; you will eat bread as a memorial of his body which was broken, you will drink wine as a memorial of his blood which was shed for you,—and in doing this, you will discern the Lord’s body; for not discerning of which the Corinthians were punished with divers diseases and sundry kinds of death.’ Address after Confirmation. Lond. 1789. p. 26—29. Unless then we be liable to the same gross abuses which prevailed among the Corinthians, it seems there can be little necessity for self-examination, or for serious concern in regard to the Supper. But the great body of Protestant divines have hitherto considered much more as included in discerning the Lord’s body, than the Bishop of Landaff and some others are disposed to admit: Believing all Scripture to be given by inspiration, and profitable, they have been unwilling to fritter away or set aside large portions of the New Testament, as bearing merely on the state of affairs at the commencement of Christianity, and of no farther use in the church than a faithful record of facts: they have viewed the Spirit as embracing the opportunity afforded by the evils that prevailed at Corinth, to furnish general direction and instruction to the church in future ages, and particularly about the proper observance of the Supper; they have considered the directions about external observance, as given in order to spiritual improvement, and regarded this last as chiefly in view. Though they allow that the New Testament is not a ministration of death and terror like the Old, and that temporal judgments are less frequently inflicted, yet they have held, that, according to the very spirit of the New Testament, we ought not to need the influence of severe sanctions to excite to our duty. Christians are not to be scourged into obedience like children in a state of minority; but are they therefore to be less studious to please God? Shall the familiarity to which they are admitted, diminish from the veneration ever due to the Lord, and which the solemnities of our Zion are intended to call forth in an eminent degree?
[p. 163]
disciples could not fast while he was with them, and no day of thanksgiving could succeed, since “that “same night Jesus was betrayed.” Though the observances had been practicable, yet unless our Lord had intended they should be essential to the celebration of the New Testament feast, it is not to be supposed he would have sanctioned them even by exemplification. We have various things however in the history of the institution, sufficiently evidential of the mind of Jesus as to the propriety of preparatory exercises, such as we are wont to connect with the ordinance:
1st, Our Lord made the time previous to institution a season of solemn inquiry. The disciples, it will be conceded, did not know that any such ordinance as the Supper was about to be kept. But their Master knew, and in what we are about to state of his procedure, had a respect to the intended institution. He made a declaration which produced “great “thoughts and searchings of heart,” and he made it manifestly with that design: “Verily, verily, I say “unto you, that one of you shall betray me.” Is there no danger of treachery still among professed disciples? Let serious self-examination have place even on this head. Among the multitude of communicants there may be some one who shall “betray “the Son of Man with a kiss.” Mark the effect of our Lord’s intimation; the disciples were deeply concerned, and began to say, “Lord, is it I?” The sincere friends of Jesus will ever exercise a godly jealousy over themselves; they will not only merely consult together, as Luke informs us the disciples did*, nor only put home the question to their own
_____
* Luke xxii. 23.
[p. 164]
consciences, they will bring it to their Lord, and embrace every opportunity of being tried by him, according to the means still existent in the church. To have known that treachery was among them, and yet have wanted the opportunity of applying for a discovery from their Master, would doubtless have added much to the grief of the disciples. Their application was most particular; “They began to say to him one “by one, Is it I*?” It would seem they expected an affirmative answer. Not receiving this, as Jesus for a time kept them in suspense, “Peter beckoned “to the disciple whom Jesus loved, that he should “ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then, “lying on Jesus’ breast, said, Lord, who is it? Jesus “answered, He to whom I shall give a sop, when I “have dipped it.” Still this answer seems to have been only secretly communicated to John†. “When “he had dipped the sop he gave it to Judas Iscariot.” This man suspecting he was pointed out by the action, was instantly impelled by Satan to fulfil his purpose. On our Lord’s saying farther, “That thou dost, “do quickly,”—a sentence which the other disciples interpreted very favourably. Judas’ supposing he was no longer hid, came out at length with the question, “Lord, is it I? Jesus answered, Thou hast said‡.” Of all things, genuine disciples are most afraid of dishonouring their Lord: The fear of betraying him, will often sadden in some measure the most joyful occasions, and this holy concern will be most apt to engross their minds in prospect, or on the eve of solemn professions. It is the will of Jesus, we perceive from the account now stated, that it should. The hypo-
_____
* Mark xiv. 19.
† John xiii. 26. compare 28, 29.
‡ Matt. xxvi. 22—25.
[p. 165]
crite, like Judas, will be the last to investigate the case, to apply to Jesus for a discovery, or resort to the proper means for attaining it.
2dly, Our Lord previous to the administration of the Supper, performed a very significant action; “He “washed the disciples’ feet.”—This action took place after the Passover; for we are told, “Jesus rose from “supper,” when he “laid aside his garments and “girded himself with the towel,” John xiii. 2. 4. But the materials of the Passover were not removed, since it was, after the washing “he dipped the sop “for Judas;” the action therefore took place before the administration of what is styled the Lord’s Supper. Among other things, it might intimate the commencement of a new feast about to take place, as it was usual to wash the feet before sitting down to an entertainment. But it had another reference of a more appropriate kind, to the ordinance of the Supper. That we may not seem to stretch the import of the transaction beyond the design of our Lord, we shall state shortly the purposes it was intended to serve. 1st, To testify our Lord’s love to his disciples, amid all their failings, though he knew there was a traitor among them, and had full in his view the scenes both of his sufferings and glory,—was one design, ver. 1, 2, 3. 2dly, Another might be, to exhibit before them his own voluntary abasement for their sakes, particularly that servitude in which he engaged for their purification, and the last scene of which they were soon to witness. Of this, the several actions he performed, laying aside his garments, putting on the servile habit, &c. as stated ver. 4th and 5th, are fitly descriptive. After he had performed the service dictated by his love, he took his garments again and sat down, ver. 12. See Heb. x. 10, 11, 12. A 3d end he had
[p. 166]
in view, was that of setting an example of charity and hospitality, particularly of humility in all the offices of brotherly-kindness, ver. 13—17. It was foreign to the Jewish manners for a teacher to wash the feet of his disciples; it is contrary to the manners of any country for the master to act such a part to the servants. But what a Teacher and Master was here! The humility displayed in the transaction was wholly without precedent or parallel. Our Lord therefore proposed the example in an argument from the greater to the less, “Ye call me Master and Lord,” &c. But, 4thly, The seemingly incidental opposition of Peter, ver. 6th, brought out a discovery of something more couched in our Lord’s procedure on this occasion; “What I do,” said Jesus, “thou knowest not “now, but thou shalt know hereafter,” ver. 7. There was a mystery in the transaction sufficient to vindicate its propriety, something of which Peter had no apprehension. This our Lord did not mean to conceal. At some future time, probably by the descent of the Spirit, it was to be fully disclosed. For we learn from what follows, that the mystery he referred to, did not lie wholly in the example, which Jesus immediately explained to the disciples. Peter not conceiving it suitable for his Lord to perform a service so humble, continued to oppose, and in terms that seemed to reflect on the other disciples for quietly allowing their Master to wash their feet, ver. 8. On this Jesus unfolded a little of the mystery; and though Peter acted freely according to the natural warmth of his temper, his opposition appears to have been wisely ordered, for affording to our Lord an opportunity to disclose the reference his conduct had then to the character and state of the disciples, as well as to the sacred observance about to take place. His discourse
[p. 167]
and detection of the traitor, previous to the institution of the Supper, as recorded ver. 18—30. threw farther light on the transaction. Two things pertain to the mystery it involved: (1.) The washing of his disciples’ feet, might be an emblem of the BLESSEDNESS they were to experience in their future labours. It intimated that he would be kind to them, would solace and refresh them under all their fatigues in his service, and abundantly compensate for the hardships they might undergo in following him through good and bad report. Hence in allusion to what he had done, he describes them ver. 20th, as ambassadors, his missionaries. The emblematical transaction was most apposite to the character; for as the feet of such are the members most apt to be wearied or beat, the washing of them, especially considering the mode of travelling in eastern countries, is most grateful and refreshing. The disciples then, were not only to comfort one another after their Lord’s example, but practically “to know thereafter,” his kindness in verifying what he had emblematically taught them to expect. It was at the close of his personal ministry our Lord thus, as it were, refreshed his disciples for all their toils in following him. And we find him elsewhere describing the future and final reward of compensation, by an allusion to something of a similar nature. “Blessed are those servants whom the Lord “when he cometh, shall find watching; verily I say “unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them “to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve “them*.” But this emblematic instruction does
______
* Luke xii. 37. He does not speak of “washing their feet,” because then all their labours will be ended; they will no more need such refreshment and solace as he taught his disciples to expect dur-
[p. 168]
not exhaust the mystery; for, 2dly, We find from his address to Peter, it lay chiefly in the necessity of attending to PURITY both in individuals and ecclesiastical societies. With respect to individuals, the particular address to Peter, intimates the necessity of spiritual purity as manifestative of interest in Jesus. “Except I wash thee, thou hast no part in me.” The inconsiderate reply of the apostle produced an explanation, by which we learn, that the transaction as to him and others did not bear on regenerating influence, but on the necessity of purification even after conversion. “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet.” The regenerated can never fall so, as to need to be washed anew. Hence Baptism, the sign is not to be re-administered. But much defilement may be contracted in the walk and conversation. Personal purity, however, was not solely in our Lord’s view: The transaction was designed to intimate that ecclesiastical societies, even the purest, will require purgation. This is evident from his extending its reference to the disciples as a body; “Ye are clean,” said he, “but not all.” The evangelist explains, “For he knew who should betray him;” that polluted member who was a devil, a calumniator and covetous, “therefore said he, ye are not all clean,” ver. 11. A society or church once “washed” or reformed, may not need to re-commence the work, or engage anew in reformation, but may, as to its general character, be “clean every whit.” Yet still there are in the
_____
[continued from p. 167] ing their sojournings in his service on earth. The idea in this passage quoted from Luke, is, that whatever his servants may lack here below, a sumptuous entertainment awaits them, to be served up by their Master. See also Luke xxii. 27—30.
[p. 169]
purest, as among the disciples, unworthy members who need to be purged out*.
Consider now this mystery in its reference to the time of the transaction. It was immediately before the institution and observance of the Supper, our Lord washed his disciples feet. As the administrator of that ordinance, he prepared them for its reception, and immediately proceeded to verify what he had done in a mystical form, ver. 18—35. As the apostle of our profession, he also set before the disciples the necessity of personal purity, and of sanctifying the people with a view to solemn service. What they might not know fully at that time, they were to know thereafter, when called to direct and manage the service of the Christian church, to which the Supper belongs. The modes of preparation for the Passover, were not suited to the New Testament feast, they could never be connected with it. Even at the time of institution, the ceremonial fitness of the family of Jesus for the typical ordinance, was not to stand for the sanctification required in order to the observance of the Supper. Jesus accordingly set about a peculiar preparation, the meaning of which he soon exemplified in the cases of Judas. And it was such a preparation as taught the necessity of a moral or Christian sanctifying of individuals and bodies, in order to similar service. The transaction, it may be remarked, does not properly point out the duty of courts, or of
_____
* The view given may appear too much expanded. There is a fulness of meaning in the uncommon transactions of Jesus, worthy of being traced out, as far as we have lights afforded to guide us with certainty. The design of enlarging, however, was to prevent any from supposing, that by proving one or two of the ends designed by our Lord, (as for instance the exhibition of an example,) they had set aside the application of the transaction to the point in hand.
[p. 170]
the overseers of a body in their judicial capacity. They ought, no doubt, to put a difference between the clean and the unclean. It is incumbent on them to exclude the vile from the table of the Lord; but if we attend to the history, we shall find that Judas was not excluded by any act of what might be called judicial authority, on the part of Jesus. Some commentators hold that he was actually present. The accounts of the evangelists placed together in their harmony seem to be unfavourable to the idea*. But whether he was present, or absent, is by no means material. In following out the purport of the transaction, something was done by Jesus to detect and expose him, that a pure communion might obtain.
_____
* Luke is the only evangelist who seems to represent him as present. But it is well known, Luke does not write according to the order of time; he often connects events by their similarity, or coincidence in other respects. This accounts for his mentioning the celebration of the Supper immediately after that of the Passover, and connecting the declaration about the traitor, which, as appears from John, intervened, with that about the ambition of the disciples, which, according to Matthew, was before the Passover, and that about Peter’s denial, which by the consent of the other evangelists, followed upon the Supper. The words of Luke, chap. xxii. 21. “Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me, is with me on the table,” are to be explained by Matt. xxvi. 23. or Mark xiv. 20, as referring to his “dipping with our Lord into the dish,” which must obviously be understood of the Passover feast. This was not the specific exposure of the person. Neither Matthew nor Mark mention his going out when detected; but we learn from John, that on his receiving the sop, and the intimation to do quickly what he was about, which, it would seem, brought out the question, “Lord, is it I?” and the explicit declaration, “Thou hast said,” recorded by Matthew and Mark,—“he went out immediately.” Now this detection, according to the two last evangelists, was before the celebration of the Supper. The sop seems to have been taken from the materials of the Passover, which had remained on the table during the washing of the feet.
[p. 171]
This was done by Jesus rather in his ministerial capacity, than as one sitting in judgment on a character. And though the ministerial procedure of our Lord was not always attended with success, it is likely it had the effect in this instance, through the operation no doubt of the evil passions of Judas, who could not bear to be exposed, ver. 30—35. As Jesus sustained no office connected with the legal economy*, so he did not exercise any ministerial authority in regard to the due observance of the Passover; but it was his province to see to purity of communion in the Supper. Judas had a right in the eye of the church to partake of the ancient feast. A similar right he might be supposed to have to sit down at the New Testament Table, since the purposes he had formed were not yet ripened into scandal. But in the eye of God, who seeth not as man doth, he had no right, and therefore our Lord in his ministerial character, by an expressive action, declared to the disciples that they “were not all clean,” and shewed them the necessity of a purgation, which he soon took means to accomplish, by detecting the hypocrisy of Judas.
May we not conclude then, from the solemn preparation for the first communion, from the instruction it was intended to convey, and from our Lord’s procedure according to it, that it is his will a special regard should be had by individuals to personal purity, and by ecclesiastical bodies to the state of their members, in prospect of the Supper, no less than under the law in prospect of ascending God’s holy hill†? And does it not appear also to be his mind, that even supposing a society “clean every whit,” so that there
_____
* Heb. vii. 13.
† Psal. xxiv. 3—6.
[p. 172]
are no grounds for judicial procedure against any, yet all means ought to be used ministerially for “sanctifying the people?” If these conclusions be admitted, the transaction certainly countenances our recourse to fasting and other warranted means of preparation, not only in private but in public, while it must be unfriendly to the plan that reduces the Supper to a level with the usual parts of Christian observance*.
IV. The mode of observing the Supper among us, is farther justified by the present state of the church, and the character of the age in which we live.
What is contained in the two preceding propositions, forms a defence of preparation; and of fasting and thanksgiving, from the nature, import, and design of the Supper itself. Preparation either in public or private, can at no time be dispensed with; and we have endeavoured to shew, that fasting and thanksgiving, with the public performance of special preparatory duties, when otherwise expedient, admit of sufficient vindication. While fasting and thanksgiving, however, are not deemed essential to a due and valid celebration of the Supper, much less the public
_____
* During the 2d and 3d centuries we find the practice of washing the feet, an appendage to Baptism. This, besides the absurdity of taking the command, ver. 14th, in a literal sense, was an improper connection. What our Lord did, referred not to the first and complete washing of a person, but to the future purification which saints or churches require, and to which any solemn service may be considered as a special call. It had been better for the Christians in these primitive times, to have taken up the import of the action performed by our Lord, and adopted, according to its spirit, some such plan of observing the Supper as is followed by us, instead of superstitiously adhering to a rite of bodily exercise.
[p. 173]
performance of these exercises, or even of any preparatory service, we allow that the circumstances of particular congregations, and the general state of the church, ought to be considered, and to have influence in determining the expediency of appointments. They to whom the power of appointing days of public worship and calling the people together, belongs, will act according to “the Spirit of wisdom and prudence.” As we might specify various circumstances in the case of particular congregations, which will merit their attention, so “we may conceive a time when the power of godliness will be such, that professors will not need to be put upon preparation and thanksgiving exercises, by being called so often to public worship before and after the sacrament of the Supper; and when they will of their own accord employ much more time in these exercises, on such a solemn occasion, than they do at present by our days of public worship*.” Whatever grounds the ordinance itself may furnish to justify the exercise of fasting in all common cases, we may conceive a period when the reign of grace, or the grand operations of Providence may be such, that, as in the days of our Lord, fasting would be altogether improper,—such, that the exhortation once addressed by the priests and Levites to God’s ancient people, would become the ministers of the Gospel, “This season is holy, mourn “not, neither weep, nor be grieved.” Let the church go forth with mirth on every side, to behold her King adorned with that crown, or those “many crowns,” acquired in “the day of the gladness of his heart.” In such periods the public profession of fasting, as it would be improper, is usually less needful than in
_____
* ANDERSON, p. 313.
[p. 174]
times of a different description. The youth of Jesus attend him “in the beauties of holiness, as the dew “from the womb of the morning.”
But is the day in which we live such a “day of divine power,” or of the glorious reign of our Redeemer? So far from perceiving in our times, any thing to controul the expediency of our plan, or secure sufficiently without the provisions it makes, the regard due to the Supper, we find on the contrary in the present state of the church, and in the character of the age, additional grounds of vindication. These too must be the less liable to exception with our opponents, as they pertain directly to the scheme of Providence.
Many an eulogium has been bestowed on the piety and purity of the primitive ages. Whether the Christians of these ages deserved the indiscriminate commendations so liberally lavished on them, particularly in regard to their weekly and daily communicatings, may be questionable. The apostle John has, in the epistles directed to the seven churches of Asia, and which exhibit “the things that then were*,” delineated a scene very different from that held up to our view by the advocates of frequent communion. In one place, the Christians had “left their first love.” In another, “the things that remained,” were “ready to die,” and there were but “a few names who had not defiled their garments.” In another, lukewarmness prevailed to a remarkable degree. Jesus had something against all these churches but one; and yet these were the churches which enjoyed the inspection and labours of him who outlived all the apostles. The fears expressed by Paul in regard to his
_____
* Rev. i. 19. comp. iv. 1.
[p. 175]
beloved Ephesians, and other highly favoured churches, began it seems to be realized ere John departed to the joy of his Lord. In his catholic epistle he laments the tokens “of the last time,” or predicted period of degeneracy, which even then began to appear. Many unworthy spirits had shewn themselves in the church, Antichrists were abroad; apostacies had taken place to such an extent as to discourage the faithful*, and among them brotherly-love seemed to be rapidly declining. The venerable apostle found it necessary to adduce every topic by which charity might be enforced.
Allowing, however, that much of the praise bestowed on the primitive age is just,—the character of the Christians then, while, as delineated by our opponents, it differs widely from that of Christians in the present age, so far from furnishing the conclusion drawn from it, founds an opposite conclusion. Instead of saying, the first Christians were spiritual, heavenly-minded, and charitable, and they celebrated the sacrament frequently, and without the observance of attendant days, therefore we ought to do the same; the statement must be—the body of Christians then, were of a different cast from what they are now, and therefore much may be requisite in this last time for securing a proper observance of that holy ordinance, which could not be needful with them. Under the zenith of apostolic ministrations, “the “faith and love of the saints” afforded copious matter of thanksgiving, was “spoken of throughout the “whole world†.” We need not therefore be sur-
_____
* 1 John ii. 18, 19.
† See particularly the high commendations of the Thessalonians, in the two epistles to them; and, in general, the introductory parts of the Apostolic Letters.
[p. 176]
prised, if the apostles did not call upon them to observe days of fasting, or give public attendance on preparatory service, to secure among them a proper celebration of the Supper. ‘A peculiar mode of dispensing the ordinance of baptism obtained, during the ministry of the Baptist: The exercise of solemn fasting and mourning for sin, with an humble acknowledgement thereof, accompanied the dispensation of that ordinance by this messenger of the Lord to the people*.’ The circumstances were such as to attach to it the name of the baptism of repentance. Now, though repentance could not be dispensed with, the solemn austerities, and severe discipline of John’s ministry, would have been improperly transferred to the administration of that sacrament after the effusion of the Holy Ghost. We find less required by the apostles, under the evidences of that plenary effusion, in order to baptism, than by the prophet of the desert. But his mode of procedure was suited to the state of things in the church when he appeared.
‘We may conceive a time when the power of godliness will be such, that professing Christians will not need to be put upon preparation and thanksgiving exercises.—But who will say that this is the case at present? Many are forward to seek tokens of admission, who make no secret of their backwardness to spare the time necessary for suitable preparation, from the hurry of worldly business. And yet while people make no conscience of suitable preparation, communicating will not only be unprofitable, but bring on fearful plagues†.’ Our mode, then, as
_____
* COURTAS, Lett. to the Old Dissenters, 70—72.
† ANDERSON, p. 313. “It appears a little enigmatical to me,” says the author of the Letter to the Old Dissenters, “that persons in such
[p. 177]
we have seen it is lawful, is highly expedient for securing as far as attainable right observance, and preventing the divine displeasure that might otherwise be incurred.
It is calculated, farther, to secure the credit of the ordinance in a degenerate age. ‘To persons, or a church, such as the apostolic, most eminently under the reign of grace, the ordinance being viewed by faith as a holy and sublime institution, and they thus affected with the highest love and veneration, in which, connected with the holy and sublime nature of the ordinance itself, proper solemnity consists;—to these persons, frequency could not be supposed to diminish the solemnity.’ Proceeding on this supposition, such persons, or such a church might be capable of a more frequent dispensation than usually obtains among us, and, unaccompanied with our public services, without the credit of the ordinance being destroyed. But among a very different description of persons, in a degenerate age, ‘many weak and sickly, and many, possibly very many, possessed of no more than a mere outward profession; faith and its evidences low among the best,’ the case must be otherwise: Recourse must be had to the means of impressing with awe, and awakening reverence, or maintaining it on the spirit. And such a plan of observance becomes proper, as may best guard this sacred institution from being abused by nominal Christians, or contemned by an ungodly generation†.
______
[continued from p. 176] “a degenerate age as this, and so deeply immersed in public business, “that they cannot spare a day once or twice a year, should yet be so habitually prepared for celebrating the sacrament of the Supper every Sabbath,” p. 76.
† COURTAS, p. 72, 73. After stating the utility of solemn public certifications, and of those discoveries which the word of God may
[p. 178]
In fine, if in a period of prevailing immorality and defection, a body of people shall be associated together, to keep themselves free, as far as can be attained, from the evils that surround them, they are associated to bewail these evils, and testify against them. To the profession of such a body, fastings necessarily belong: They resemble those “men who sighed and “cried for the abominations done in the land,” of whom Jehovah expressed his high approbation, and at a time when he gave commission to seal them, or set a mark on them, to secure them from approaching calamities*. When can such a body of Christians more properly observe days of fasting, than when about to avow solemnly their discriminating profession, and their fellowship in it at the table of the Lord? Their very existence as a separate society, indicates, that matters are not well with the church of God, that the purity, fervour, and faithfulness supposed to characterise the primitive ages, are not the distinguishing ornaments of the present generation. Abstracting from all other reasons which might justify fasting in prospect of keeping the Supper, they may perceive in the very grounds which occasioned, and still require their separate existence, enough to vindicate the practice with them. In a period of corruption, it is specially incumbent on them, according to the cha-
_____
[continued from p. 177] make even to the reason of natural men, he adds, “To adopt the” supposed “apostolic frequency,” and, (we may insert,) lay aside the public preparatory services, “in a degenerate state of the church, would infallibly destroy that external solemnity, (by which he means the awe produced on the minds of nominal Christians) with its advantages, I have now mentioned. The consequence would be, a more open contempt of God’s institution by the wicked, and disregard of his law. In this opinion I am supported by the common experience, and common sense of all mankind.”
* Ezek. ix. Rev. vii. xi. xiv. 1.
[p. 179]
racter they bear, to manifest a sacred regard to the pure and devout observance of divine institutions*.
To what has been stated under these four propositions in vindication of our mode, we subjoin the following observations:
1. The authority of appointing such days of public worship as are connected with the Supper, belongs to the office-bearers of the church.—Had there been stated periods for fasting and thanksgiving of divine institution, the necessity of exercising a delegated authority had been superseded; nothing had remained but to see to observance, as in the case of the Sabbath. Public fasting and thanksgiving, however, are only declared to be warrantable on fit occasions, or on such grounds, as according to scripture examples and deductions from them, appear to render the duties seasonable and proper. The canon of revelation is closed, and we cannot expect a voice from heaven to fix the specific times. The power of judging concerning these, and of appointing accordingly, must therefore reside somewhere in the church.—But the New Testament code acknowledges no ecclesiastical power as invested in any but those denominated rulers†. These are declared to be the elders, whether they labour in word and doctrine or not‡. To them it belongs to mark the seasons, to judge of the occasions, and determine the expediency of all public voluntary observance§. And it is their province to or-
_____
* The author of the Letters of Communion, who has so eagerly contended for the new measure, is connected with a society, or societies of this description. They are the last from whom opposition to the present method might have been expected.
† 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29. 1 Thess. v. 12. Heb. xiii. 7, 17.
‡ 1 Tim. v. 17.
§ 1 Tim. iii. 1. Tit. i. 5, 7. they are overseers and stewards.
[p. 180]
der in every warranted mode, for the due celebration of divine institutions*.
2. When the days are appointed, they ought to be kept.—The authority by which they are appointed is the very same to which an immediate respect must be had in observing a day of fasting or thanksgiving on any emergency of providence. It may be thought that in such cases the providential call is what chiefly requires respect. This will not be denied. But of that call the people are not the constituted judges, so as to determine and appoint the correspondent public services. They have, no doubt, what has been denominated a discretive or private judgment, in regard to the emergencies of providence, as well as the doctrines of the gospel, and according to this, may petition their overseers for a day of fasting and thanksgiving. They may in various other ways endeavour to excite their rulers to a discharge of their duty, should they seem negligent or inattentive. Nay, without transgressing their province, they may, in a prudent and becoming manner, say even to a faithful pastor, “Take heed to “the ministry thou hast received of the Lord, that “thou fulfil it†.” But still the authority to which an immediate respect must be had in the observance of uninstituted times of worship is that of the rulers: nor is this authority less worthy of respect when exercised in cases of voluntary sacrifice, provided the
_____
* Acts xx. 18. 1 Tim. iii. 5. 1 Pet. v. 2.
† Col. iv. 17. The faithful in that church were desired to read “the epistle from Laodicea.” See preceding verse. If an inspired epistle be referred to, it was probably the first to Timothy, said to be written from Laodicea. In that epistle directions for the fulfilment of a ministry received of the Lord are laid down. The faithful were to express their desire that Archippus should follow these directions among them.
[p. 181]
appointments be warrantable, and have enough to justify their being made, than when controlled by providence. Let us instance a case of the choice and ordination of deacons. The office of deacons is warranted, but it is not so essential that a congregation cannot be regularly organized without them. They are denominated “helps,” and where their assistance is needful, or might be useful, may be created. God has provided, by sanctioning the office, that their being employed as assistants to elders in certain duties, shall not be an unwarrantable addition to the order of his church, nor placed on a level with will-worship. Now, they who are the judges in such matters, may act, not only on the call of necessity, but even of propriety and expediency, in requiring the people to look out among them such as they may reckon fit for the office. The authority exercised in this case ought not to be disrespected; nor may those who are chosen refuse ordination, though the persons by whom the choice was appointed should not be able to shew them a call of absolute necessity.—The divine command to the people is express, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls.” They may be said to watch for the souls committed to their charge, when they endeavour to secure the celebration of a solemn ordinance in the manner best suited to its nature and design.—Since then, as we have proved, the connecting of certain days, or public exercises, with the Lord’s Supper, is not unwarrantable, and since there is enough to justify the appointment of these days, or of the exercises to which they are devoted; the overseers of any congregation have a right to require the observance of these days when appointed.
[p. 182]
3dly, It is proper that an uniformity of worship, particularly of the mode of celebrating the Supper, should obtain in a religious body. The establishment of uniformity in Britain and Ireland was once the object of a very laudable and solemn engagement. Acts have been made to secure uniformity in the dispensation of the Supper. Although much be left to the regulation of Sessions, who are the best judges of expediency and propriety in particular circumstances, as indeed the whole business of appointment ought to rest with them, instead of ever being determined by a general ecclesiastical law, yet Sessions ought to study as far as possible an uniformity of method. The want of this is often attended with serious consequences. It may occasion unnecessary offence, a thing peculiarly disagreeable in regard to the ordinance of communion. If the Supper be, as we have seen, designed to maintain the fellowship of the different congregations which constitute a professing body, a common understanding as to the mode of procedure will be requisite, and the overseers of one congregation, while acting in the sphere of their own jurisdiction, ought to manifest a proper regard to the rest of their other brethren in the Lord. The common grounds of vindication, stated in our propositions, are a sufficient basis of uniformity, and while acted upon will ever produce it. They pertain to the ordinance itself, and the present state of the church. Any great alteration of affairs, which we have supposed may control the plan now followed, will be generally felt. The direction it may give to the mode of observance will not be confined to one congregation; it will establish uniformity while its influence lasts. And where particular circumstances may now interfere, no offence can be warrantably taken,
[p. 183]
4. While there is so much in the nature and design of the ordinance, and in the circumstances of the church to justify the present mode of observance, it ought not to be laid aside on grounds of personal inconvenience.—
(1.) Because the days are not cumbersome to the people who are required to observe them. They do not too frequently recur; no more than what are barely proper are appointed, and only one half of the Saturday and Monday is set apart, constituting with the Fast but two entire days.
(2.) Because we ought not to yield to the worldly-minded. Men devoted to the world, anxious to retain on all occasions what God has allowed for the concerns of this life, may grudge even half a day from their six. The principle by which they are actuated, would appropriate the Sabbath itself, did not civil authority interpose. The prevalence of this principle, and its opposition to the usual sacrifice of time, as well as of substance, on sacramental occasions, ought not to overrule regard to a plan which is calculated to testify against it.
(3.) Because the godly ought to be more enlightened than to refuse compliance, and are not to be expected to oppose on grounds of personal inconvenience. No individual who pleads a case of necessity for himself, if but a reasonable man, not to say a genuine Christian, will be disposed to set up that case for a directory to any court of Christ. Because on some occasions he may have found the observance of the days inconvenient, or perhaps may have such an allotment in life, that while certain circumstances remain, it must ever be impracticable for him to observe them, he will not therefore wish the plan to be accommodated to his situation, much less to be laid
[p. 184]
aside; nor, which would amount to the same thing, but discover less illumination and greater perversity, will he strike out against the authority of his overseers to appoint the observance of such days. It must ill comport with the fervour of piety, to grudge the small sacrifice of time claimed for more necessary purposes than any the world can ever place in competition, purposes too far superior to the mere dispensation of tokens for which a modicum, it seems, would be allowed by those who are for discarding our plan.
Upon the whole, the arrangements in the Presbyterian method will be found, it is hoped, among the “gold, silver, and precious stones,—work” that will stand every trial by fire, and survive even the judgments designed to demolish and consume the whole structure of superstitious inventions.—May God shew kindness to Zion, then shall the righteous offerings of his church and people be accepted of him;—“the meek shall eat and be satisfied, and give praise to the Lord.”
THE END.