Neither is all prayer so sacred and solemn as sacramental prayer, nor is any mere prayer a federal rite, like a Sacrament: nor does the want of due preparation in prayer (though a culpable neglect) so directly tend to frustrate the most sacred ties, and to turn all religion into hypocrisy and form, as the want of it in the other case does: therefore, the two cases are by no means parallel, but similar only, and that in great disproportion. And hence it was (as I before hinted) that the ancients, while they admitted catechumens to some prayers, proper to them, and the lower degrees of penitents to prayers proper for them, and the highest order of penitents to some part of the Communion prayers, as not improper for them; yet they debarred even the best of them, sometimes, month after month, or year after year, as not yet worthy to receive the holy Communion.

I may now proceed somewhat farther with Chrysostom. In another Homily, after he had been speaking of the danger of receiving unworthily, he adds, "I speak not this "to deter you from coming, but from coming carelessly. "For, as there is danger in coming carelessly, so there is "famine and death in the not partaking at all of the mys"tical supper. This table is, as it were, the sinews of our "souls, the girding up of the mind, the support of our "confidence; our hope, our health, our light, our life h." Here the eloquent Father seems to make it not so bad to receive unworthily, as to forbear receiving at all: for he represents the one as dangerous, the other as fatal. If so, the unworthy non-communicant would be in a worse condition than the unworthy communicant; and it would be safest to receive at all adventures: and if that were admitted, it would be hard to justify the ancient discipline with respect to either Sacrament. But here we must answer with distinction. Supposing the unworthiness equal in both, there is equally contempt in both cases, but not equal contempt; for the unworthy communicant is guilty

↳ Chrysostom in 1 Cor. x. hom, xxv. p. 262.

of a greater contempt than the other, and is the most profane of the two, incurring greater damnation. As it were better not to have known the way of life, than to go counter to it; so it were better never to take the Sacrament, than to profane it as constantly as we take it. So then, to neglect it out of contempt is indeed famine and death: but still the other is more dangerous, as exposing the person to sorer death and more grievous punishment; which I take to be Chrysostom's real meaning. Nevertheless, if a man only suspects or doubts within himself, whether he is fit to receive, it will certainly be his safest way to receive; and his humble modesty, if really such, will itself be a commendable part of his preparation. The degrees of unworthiness are many and various, and no man is strictly worthy: a sincere, though for the present weak resolution to amend instantly in every known article of disobedience, seems to be ordinarily a sufficient security against the danger of receiving unworthily.

Century the Fifth.

The first Council of Toledo, in the year 400, made an order about those who were observed never to come to Communion, that they should be admonished for such their habitual and total neglect, and if they did not reform, should be obliged to submit to penance1. This decree appears very mild and moderate, as being pointed only against those who constantly absented, and as prescribing an admonition before the censure; and at length excommunicating those only, who had in a manner excommunicated themselves. No doubt but such order might have a very good effect upon those who were barely supine and careless in that article, otherwise leading innocent lives. But perhaps exhortation or admonition alone might have been sufficient to as many as were well disposed; and as

1 De his qui intrant in ecclesiam, et deprehenduntur nunquam communicare, admoneantur, ut, si non communicant, ad pœnitentiam accedant, &c. Concil. Tolet. i. Can. 13.

to the rest, censure might be thought too much for who shall force a man to repent? Or how is it repentance, if it is not free? Or what signifies the coming to the Lord's table in hypocrisy? These considerations have their weight: and therefore excommunication in such a case, so far as it is justifiable, must be maintained upon some general principle, such as the necessity of removing notorious offences or scandals, for fear of contagion to the rest, and for fear of bringing an infamy upon the whole body, by such connivance as might look too like an allowance of so shameful a neglect. The general good of the Church, in some cases, ought to overrule all such considerations as have been before mentioned. For example: there are, suppose, ten thousand officiating clergy in a nation, who may be obliged, by the laws of Church and State, to administer and to receive the holy Communion, so often, be they prepared or otherwise. In such a number, some hundreds, it may be, may officiate and receive, not duly prepared. Let them look to that: the Church is clear so far, because the necessity of the case and the general good so requires. It would be trifling here to urge, that it is forcing men to profane the holy Sacrament, or forcing them to repent and amend. That must be risked upon higher and more weighty considerations: for God's people must not be deprived of the benefit of the Sacrament in such cases. Therefore, I observed, that the considerations before mentioned have their weight; as indeed they ought to have; but so far only, as they are not opposed to other considerations of a more general nature, and of still greater weight.

The same Council made a strict order, that such of the resident clergy as came not to the daily prayers and Communion should be deposed, if they did not reform after admonition m. By this we see that daily Communions were

m Clericus, si intra civitatem fuerit, vel in loco quo ecclesia est, aut castello, aut vico, aut villa, et ad ecclesiam ad sacrificium quotidianum non accesserit, clericus non habeatur, si castigatus per satisfactionem veniam ab episcopo noluerit promereri. Concil. Tolet. i. Can. 5.

yet kept up in some churches. Which appears likewise from the testimonies of Jeromen and Austin, of that time. Some Christians of that age were so scrupulous in that matter, that they thought themselves under a strict obligation to communicate, if possible, every day: others thought otherwise; and St. Austin was consulted upon the question. It was pleaded on the side of daily Communion, that every one ought to communicate as often as he worthily might; and that if he was not debarred by Church censures from it, he might be looked upon as worthy, the Church being judge of that case. On the other side it was pleaded, that some particular chosen days, when a man might be most recollected, and best prepared, were preferable; for so the greater reverence would be shown towards the Sacrament, and it would be more likely to answer its end and use. St. Austin did not care to determine for either, but took a middle way to compromise the dispute; which was to advise both parties (as they intended the same thing in the main) to show their reverence to the Sacrament in their different ways, according to their respective persuasions. For, says he, "neither of them really dishonours the Lord's body and "blood, while both contend, only in a different way, who "shall do most honour to the blessed Sacrament. For "neither did Zaccheus and the Centurion strive together,

66

or one prefer himself before the other, when the former "gladly received our Lord into his house, and the latter "said, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my "roof: but both did honour to our Saviour in their several, "or rather contrary ways; both were sinners, and both "found mercy. So here, one out of reverence dares not

n Scio Romæ hanc esse consuetudinem ut fideles semper Christi corpus accipiant: quod nec reprehendo, nec laudo; unusquisque enim in suo sensu abundat. Hieron, adv. Jovin. p. 239. Conf. Ep. lii. ad Lucin. p. 579. edit. Bened.

• Alii quotidie communicant corpori et sanguini Domini, alii certis diebus accipiunt. Augustin. Epist. ad Jan. liv. (alias cxviii.) p. 124. tom. 2. edit. Bened.

"partake every day: another out of the like reverence, "dares not omit it a single day: all is well, so long as "there is no contempt in either case upon the holy Sacra"ment P." This resolution of St. Austin was most certainly very wise and just, suitable to the question as there stated, whether a man should communicate every day, or only upon some select days, when fittest for it. But had the question been, whether it were sufficient for persons fitly prepared to communicate once or twice a year, or the like, he would have said no, but oftener; either every month, or every week, if opportunity offered. Gennadius, who lived in the close of the same century, (about A. D. 495,) determined as cautiously about daily receiving, neither approving nor disapproving it but weekly receiving he spoke fully up to, recommending it as highly proper for all that were competently prepared, that is, for all that were sincerely penitent, and were not under any prevailing inclination to vice 9.

:

Century the Sixth.

In the beginning of this century (about A. D. 506.) the

P Neuter enim eorum exhonorat corpus et sanguinem Domini, sed saluberrimum sacramentum certatim honorare contendunt. Neque enim litigaverunt inter se, aut quisquam eorum se alteri præposuit Zachæus et ille Centurio, cum alter eorum gaudens in domum suam susceperit Dominum. Alter dixerit; Non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum: ambo Salvatorem honorificantes diverso, et quasi contrario modo; ambo peccatis miseri, ambo misericordiam consecuti.- -Ille honorando non audet quotidie sumere; et ille honorando non audet ullo die prætermittere. Contemptum, solum non vult cibus iste, &c. Augustin. ibid. p. 125.

Quotidie Eucharistiæ communionem percipere, nec laudo nec vitupero: omnibus tamen Dominicis diebus communicandum suadeo et hortor; si tamén mens in affectu peccandi non sit. Nam habentem adhuc voluntatem peccandi, gravari magis dico Eucharistiæ perceptione, quam purificari. Et ideo quamvis quis peccato mordeatur, peccandi non habeat de cætero voluntatem, et communicaturus satisfaciat lacrymis et orationibus, et confidens de Domini miseratione, qui peccata piæ confessioni donare consuevit, accedat ad Eucharistiam intrepidus et securus. Sed hoc de illo dico, quem capitalia et mortalia peccata non gravant. Gennad. Massil, inter August. Opp. tom. viii. App. p. 78. ed. Bened.