The Practice of Piety

I see no reason, but if Christians desire it (when they are not through sickness able to come to the church) but that they should receive, and Pastors ought to administer unto them the Sacraments at home. He showeth more simplicity then knowledge, who thinks that this savours of a private ⟨p. 972⟩Mass. For a Mass is called private, not because it is said in a private house, but because (as Bishop ^aJewel teacheth out of ^bAquinas) the Priest receiveth the Sacrament himself alone without distribution made unto others, and then it is private; although the whole Parish be present and look upon him. There is as much difference between such a Communion, and the Antichristian Idol of a private Mass, as there is betwixt Heaven and Hell. For at a Communion in a private family upon such an extraordinary occasion, Christ his institution is observed: Many faithful brethren meet together, and tarry one for another: Christ ⟨p. 973⟩his death is remembered and showed; and the Minister, together with the faithful, and the sick party,³ do communicate. Master Calvin saith, That he doth very willingly admit administering of the Communion to them that are sick, when the case and opportunity so requireth. And in ^aanother place he saith, That he hath many weighty reasons to compel him not to deny the Lords Supper unto the sick. Yet I would wish all Christians to use to receive often (in their health) especially once every month with the whole Church; for then they shall not need so much to assemble their friends upon such an occasion, nor so ⟨p. 974⟩much to be troubled themselves for want of the Sacrament.⁵ For as Master Perkins saith very well, The fruit and efficacy of the Sacrament is not to be restrained to the time of receiving: but it extends it self to the whole time of mans life afterward: the efficacy whereof, did men throughly understand: they should not need to be often exhorted to receive it.