TODAY (Nov. 14) is the Feast Day (in the Anglican Communion) of Samuel Seabury.
In honor of the occasion, we re-publish Seabury’s incisive tract, An Earnest Persuasive to Frequent Communion.
An Earnest Persuasive
to Frequent Communion
PAGE 2
Consider these things, and let your own consciences determine, whether your neglect of the Holy Communion can be justified on any principles of Christianity or reason? Whenever you compare your conduct with Christ’s command, sure I am, your own hearts must condemn you: Remember then, “God is greater than your heart, and knoweth all things.” It is not so much with me, as with your God, you have this matter to settle; and did you attend to it, you would make no more excuses, but immediately prepare yourselves to become worthy guests at God’s Table.
It is to be feared there are some who never think enough of the subject to make excuses about it. To these I have nothing to say at present. Till they come to a better mind, they will give no attention, and till they do, no reason or persuasion can take any hold of them. I flatter myself there are few, I hope none, among you in so hopeless a condition. Most people intend to consider the subject of religion some time or other, and to make up for all deficiencies by their after diligence. The misfortune is, this some time or other is long in coming; and there is danger lest it never come at all. Negligence, and indisposition to reflection, and attachment to the world, and the lust of sensual pleasure, by continuance, grow stronger, and death closes the scene, before any resolutions of the future amendment are carried into effect.
The great excuse for not coming to the Communion, and to which all others, where there is any hope of doing good, may be referred, is that of unworthiness. And it is probable, a sense of their deficiencies, and a strong apprehension of the sin of unworthy receiving, keep more well disposed people from the Communion than any other reason. Let such well disposed people consider the danger of disobeying God, as well as the danger of unworthy receiving. By refusing to communicate, they sin against God’s positive law; but by communicating, it is not certain they would incur the guilt of unworthy receiving–for with some tender consciences, there is more of apprehension than reality in the case. And why should any one keep himself in such a state as that he must sin against God, either by disobeying His positive law, or by unworthy attendance upon His ordinance? Why does he not rather repent of his unworthiness, and amend his life? God is ready to bless his efforts if they be sincere, and to accept his penitence.
It is to be regretted that the word damnation is used by our Translators in rendering a passage of St. Paul to the Corinthians–for that seems to be the occasion of the great terror of unworthy receiving. The literal meaning of the word is judgment, and it is so rendered in the margin of our Bible; and had it been in the text–“He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself,” it would have prevented much uneasiness to many pious people. That St. Paul used the word here to express temporal judgments and not eternal damnation appears from the next verse–“For this cause”–on account of this unworthy receiving–“many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep”–are dead. He then observes, that the way to avoid these judgments was, to judge ourselves and amend our lives, and then “we should not be judged”–the judgments of God, sickness and premature death, would not be inflicted on us. But he says not a word of giving up the thoughts of receiving the Communion, lest by their unworthiness they should bring God’s judgments on them. The obligation to communicate he supposed still remained, and exhorts them to repentance and amendment, that they might communicate worthily. He makes another observation, viz. That those judgments were the chastisements of the Lord, sent to reclaim them, and bring them to repentance and a better mind, that they might “not be condemned with the world.”
It is, however, certain, there was some great unworthiness among the Corinthians which St. Paul condemned, and on account of which God’s judgments were inflicted on them: And he seems to have pretty clearly pointed it out.
The first converts to Christianity being Jews, and having a strong attachment to their own religious customs, they carried some of them into the Christian Church. On many occasions it was their custom, and their law required it, to have a feast upon the sacrifice, and all who ate of it were supposed to have an interest in its efficacy. Their annual Passover particularly was a feast of this kind–And as our Saviour had instituted the Holy Communion at the conclusion of this feast, consecrating the paschal bread and the cup of blessing as it was called, to be the memorials of His Body and Blood, the Apostles and first Christians carried the custom into the Christian Church of accompanying the Christian sacrifice of bread and wine with a feast. This feast was called, The Feast of Love: To it the rich and the poor brought their provisions, and ate them together at a common table, in token of their mutual goodwill and affection, of their fellowship, and unity in Christ’s religion, and of their belief that the benefits of Christ’s death were not restrained by any consideration of bond or free, high or low, rich or poor.
However well calculated these love-feasts which accompanied the Lord’s-Supper were, to promote and secure Christian charity and unity, at Corinth they were perverted. The rich despised the poor–the powerful those beneath them. They waited not till the brethren were come together, but they who came first ate their own supper by themselves. The rich, who could provide plenty of delicate food, ate and drank to excess; while the poor, who could bring little or nothing, not being permitted to partake with the rich, went away hungry from a feast of charity.–At such disorderly feasts the Holy Supper was celebrated among them.
This is the conduct which St. Paul so frequently censures, as anyone may satisfy himself by reading carefully his discourse upon the subject He affirms, that such disorderly celebration of. the Communion was not to eat the Lord’s Supper but to profane it; and directs them who were hungry to eat at home, and not make the Church a scene of disorder and riot by their excess, nor their love-feasts an occasion of pride and insolence, by despising and putting to shame the poor, unprovided members of the congregation, whose hunger ought, at least at their love-feasts, to be relieved by the rich. To convince them of the impropriety of their conduct, and reclaim them to a decent and worthy behaviour, he then sets before them the solemn institution of the Holy Ordinance, as he had received it by revelation, from Christ Himself. And the force of the Apostle’s argument seems to be–that Christ distributed the sacramental elements equally to all the Apostles, in token that He devoted Himself to death equally for them all, and directed them to eat of it at one table in remembrance of, and as a memorial before God, of his love to them all, and in token of their mutual love and union. For the Corinthians, therefore, to exclude the poor for whom Christ equally died, to whom the sacred symbols of His Body and Blood were equally distributed, from a due share in their feast of love, without supplying their hunger with necessary bread–was so far from worthily eating the Lord’s Supper, that it was not even to discern the Lord’s Body, i. e. It put no difference, made no distinction, between the Lord’s Supper, & a common meal–at least did not sanctify the Lord’s Body–treat it as a holy, but common thing.–This was the unworthiness which the Apostle censured in the Corinthians, and this, the not discerning the Lord’s Body, which, he says caused the judgments of God, sickness and death, to come upon them.
I have been the more particular in this matter to convince you, that in the Church to which we belong, all opportunity of incurring that unworthiness which the Apostle censured in the Corinthians is precluded.
It may, I know, be said, and said justly, that tho’ all opportunity of incurring that unworthiness which St. Paul condemned in the Corinthians be cut off, by the abolition of the love-feasts, yet there may be people in such a state as makes them really unworthy to partake in the Holy Communion. I readily own too, that a person who approaches the Holy Table without due reverence and devotion, without considering the dignity of the Holy Mystery, and the difference between receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord, and eating and drinking common bread and wine, does not receive the Lord’s Body, is guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, and is in danger of bringing God’s judgments upon him by his unworthy receiving. But I repeat it; there is no reason why he should continue in this evil state but what comes from himself. Let him judge himself by the rule of God’s commandments, and see wherein he has done amiss. Let him compare his sentiments of the Holy Communion with our Saviour’s institution, and with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and correct his unworthy notions. Let him be instant in prayer to God for the gift of His grace and Holy Spirit. Let him deny his evil propensities, and mortify his vicious appetites; and in this way prepare himself to do honour to God by obeying His command.
But to treat of this subject of general unworthiness a little more particularly. The qualifications requisite to make a worthy Communicant, and to make an adult a worthy subject of Baptism, as far as I can see are the same. They who have kept their Baptism undefiled are undoubtedly always fit to approach the Christian Altar–More knowledge may be requisite to the Communion than to Baptism; In other respects the qualifications are the same.
That habits, and gross acts of sin, render a person unworthy to communicate, there can be no doubt. There is as little doubt, that the same state renders him unfit to pray, or do any act of religion, acceptably to’ God. I will go further, and say, that it would be a profanation of the Holy Communion for him, while in this state, to come to it.–And it would be so far from doing him good, that it would do him hurt, by hardening the heart in impenitency. And is not this as true of prayer as of the Holy Communion? Is it not a profanation of God’s name to pray to Him, while we wilfully live in the habits, or practice of known sin, without any design or desire of becoming better? In this state every prayer is an act of hypocrisy, and hardens the heart against the impressions of God’s Spirit. Therefore it is, that “the sacrifice of the wicked,” and the “prayer” of him that turneth away his ear from hearing the law”–that refuseth to obey the commandments of God–“are an abomination to the Lord.”
But should such a person have any desire to become better–any wish to get rid of the slavery and guilt of sin;–as such a desire and wish must come from God, so the only effectual means of bringing them to good effect is, constant and earnest prayer to God for the support of His Holy Spirit, carefully to do his duty according to his best knowledge and ability, and steadily to avoid all occasions of sin. In this way his good desires would be encouraged, his resolutions of amendment strengthened, his love of God increased, habits of virtue and holiness formed and confirmed–while those of sin and vice would decline and die away. His prayers would no longer be an abomination, but highly acceptable to God. And he would then too become a worthy guest at the Lord’s Table, where receiving the outward elements with true penitence and faith, he would also receive the precious Body and Blood of Christ, ” to his great and endless comfort.” For the Holy Communion is, at least, as great an instrument of holy living as prayer, and the efficacy of both, on our part, rests on the same circumstances–penitence and faith: The former denoting our conversion or departure from sin, the latter our reliance upon God, and trust in His mercy and goodness. Should I go further, and say that prayers offered up at the Altar have more efficacy with God than other prayers have, it would be saying no more than the Catholic Church has always said and taught.
But though sinful habits, and single acts of gross sin, render us unworthy to approach God’s Table, till repentance reconcile us to Him, yet sins, as they are called, of infirmity, ignorance, surprise, are not attended with that malignity. Our present state subjects us to them. They proceed from that lust of the flesh, or original corruption of nature, which, according to the gth Article of our Church, remains even in the regenerate. And though they have in them the nature of sin, being contrary to the holiness and purity of God, yet by the merciful terms of the Christian covenant, they shall not finally condemn us, provided we do not willingly live in them, but watch and strive against them, humble ourselves before God under the sense of them, pray earnestly to Him to be delivered from their power by the might of His Spirit, and trust to His mercy through the Redeemer that He will not impute them to us.
NEXT PAGE >>>>>
 Reading for the Common Good From ERB Editor Christopher Smith "This book will inspire, motivate and challenge anyone who cares a whit about the written word, the world of ideas, the shape of our communities and the life of the church." -Karen Swallow Prior Enter your email below to sign up for our weekly newsletter & download your FREE copy of this ebook! |
Understanding Christian Nationalism [A Reading Guide] |
 Most Anticipated Books of the Fall for Christian Readers!
|
 Hilarious One-Star Customer Reviews of Bibles |
