Section One. The use of the Communion Table, in celebrating the Sacrament of our Lord’s Supper, is in conformity with the example of Christ, and the Apostles, and the nature and design of that holy ordinance.

The use of a table in celebrating the sacrament of our Lord’s Supper, is in conformity with the pattern exhibited by Christ at the first institution of that ordinance; and the practice of late introduced into some of our Established Churches, of substituting pews for the Communion Table, is a departure from that pattern, and therefore a corrupt innovation, which ought not to be allowed in the Church of Scotland. This ordinance was instituted by Christ immediately after the celebration of the Jewish Passover; and express mention is made of a table by the two Evangelists, Luke and John. In reference to the traitor Luke (22:21) represents Christ as saying, "Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." In reference to the same person, John (13:27) represents Christ as saying to him, "That thou doest, do quickly;" and the Evangelist adds (v. 28), "Now, no man at the table knew for what intent he spoke this unto him." A table was therefore certainly used, and the usual table posture of Judea observed by Christ and the Apostles at the Passover, and first institution of our Lord’s Supper; for we are told expressly by Matthew (26:20) that "Christ sat down with the twelve;" and by Luke (22:14) that "He sat down, and the twelve Apostles with him."

It is indeed understood, that the Jews sometimes used an erect posture, and sometimes a reclining posture, at table. The learned Dr. Lightfoot, in his discourse of the temple-service in the time of our Savior (ch. 13) states, that "their sitting at meat was commonly upon beds or couches, made for that purpose, with the table before them. Now, at other meals, they either sat as we do, with their bodies erect; or, when they would enlarge themselves to more freedom of feasting or refreshing, they sat upon the beds, and leaned upon the table, on their left elbow; and this, or the other, posture, they used indifferently at other times, as they were disposed; but, on the Passover night, they thought they were obliged to use this leaning composure; and you may take their reason for it in some of their own words. They use their leaning posture as freemen do, in memorial of their freedom. And Levi said, because it is the manner of servants to eat standing, therefore now they eat sitting and leaning, to show they were got out of servitude into freedom."

Different opinions are entertained by rabbinical writers respecting the form of the table used by the Jews at the feast of the Passover; some representing it in the form of a horse-shoe, and some in the form of a triangle, etc., etc. There is, however, no doubt Christ and the disciples then used such a table posture as was usual among the Jews at the feast of Passover, and that they had such a table as they then surrounded, observing the countenances of one another, and enjoying the happiness of social intercourse. That their posture at the Passover table was encompassing or surrounding it is plain from the account given by the Evangelist John (13:21ff). He there states that "Jesus was troubled in spirit, and said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake;" plainly referring to them examining the faces of one another, to see if any of them showed in their countenances any marks of conscious guilt. "Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom, one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved: Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake;" plainly supposing that Peter saw the face of John, and that, by beckoning to him, he made himself perfectly understood. So that Christ and the Apostles must have sat round the table, seeing the faces of each other; and this posture at the Passover table, no doubt, continued at the first institution of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper which then took place. This is the first and highest authority for a Communion Table, to which all the disciples of Christ should approach, to receive the appointed memorials of his dying love, and which they ought to encompass with every token of mutual affection, as children of their Father in heaven. The late innovation of excluding the greater part of the communicants from the table, and substituting pews, where they all turn their backs on one another, can therefore be considered in no other light than a corruption, being a departure from the pattern set by Christ and the Apostles.

The discourse which Christ addressed to the disciples at the institution of the sacrament of the Supper, has a plain reference to the Communion Table. They were dejected and grieved at the prospect of Christ leaving them: but he comforted and cheered them with the promise of the highest delight and communion with him at a table in glory (Luke 22:28-30). "Ye are they," he says, "who have continued with me in my temptation; and I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my TABLE in my kingdom;" evidently referring to the enjoyment they then had with him at that first Communion Table. Referring also to the happiness they then enjoyed with him in that upper room, or guest chamber, where they were then assembled, he told them for their consolation, that "in his Father’s house were many mansions" (John 14:2).

There can be no doubt but that, after the Apostles had been baptized with the Holy Ghost, and thus led into all truth, they used the table posture in celebrating that ordinance. There is plain reference to the use of the Communion Table in their writings. One design of the First Epistle to the Corinthians is to correct certain abuses which had crept in respecting that ordinance; and the Apostle, in exhorting Christians to abstain from idolatrous practices, and to walk suitable to their Christian profession and engagements, does it in language evidently referring to their having been at the Communion Table. He says (1 Cor. 10:21), "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils." This reference to the use of the table by the Apostle, is a proof of the practice which then obtained, and was approved by the Apostle, and a proof that the table posture was designed by Christ to be continued in the celebration of that ordinance. To deviate, then, from the pattern exhibited by Christ, and followed and approved by the inspired Apostles, must be considered as a violation of a Divine institution.

Sitting in pews does not answer the design of sitting at a Communion Table in this ordinance; for it is a feast of love, in which the faithful commemorate and show forth the death of the Lord Jesus Christ as an atoning sacrifice, in their room and stead, and in which they also testify their love to Christ, and one another, as redeemed sinners. This is referred to by the Apostle (1 Cor. 10:16), "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" But when people are all sitting in pews, and all turning their backs on one another, there is no external appearance of a feast of love, in which Christians enjoy fellowship, and social intercourse, and testify their affectionate regard for one another.

A pew is not a table in the common acceptation of the term in this country, nor can it answer the design of a table. A table is designed and used in the ordinary purposes of life for social entertainment; and when people surround it as friends, and eat and drink together, they enjoy the pleasures of society, and cultivate esteem and affection for each other. Were people, at an ordinary entertainment, all with one consent to turn away their faces, and turn their backs on each other, such conduct would be shocking to the feelings, and every spectator would be filled with disgust to behold such a token of coldness, aversion and hatred, where every mark of good will, friendship, and affection was expected. But this remark will apply with much greater force to this Gospel feast of our Lord’s Supper, which commemorates the most astonishing instance of Divine love to our fallen race, and in which Christians testify their great love to Christ and to each other.

In this ordinance Christians not only enter into, and renew their engagements to the service of God; but they also enter into, and renew their engagements to love and pray for one another; to sympathize with, and relieve one another; and to continue united to one another, in the faith, and hope, and obedience of the Gospel. This is referred to by the Apostle (1 Cor. 10:17). "For we, being many, are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread." How strange and inconsistent then, will it appear, for Christians, either in entering into, or renewing these engagements, to turn their backs on one another! In an ordinary transaction among men, such conduct would be considered as insulting. The countenance is justly considered as the index of the soul; and in entering into any engagement with another, we are disposed to form an estimate of the sincerity and integrity of the person we engage with, from the expression of his countenance. We may be deceived, but this is a natural feeling; and were the person we treat with to turn away his face from us, we would be quite unsatisfied, and have no confidence in his being sincere and faithful to his promises or engagements. How revolting then, must it appear in Christians, in this very solemn transaction, to turn their backs on one another, exhibiting only tokens of coldness, distant formality, and hatred, where every mark of Christian sincerity, attachment, and good faith, should be expected!

With great propriety then, have the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 13th February, 1645, declared, that they consider their own order of a Communion Table, in opposition to the practice of the Independents sitting in pews, "to be most agreeable to the word of God, the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the nature of that heavenly feast;" and in the First Book of Discipline, agreed on in the year 1560, that "the table of the Lord is then most rightly ministered, when it approacheth most near to Christ’s own action. But plain it is, that at supper, Christ Jesus sat with his disciples, and therefore doe we judge that sitting at a table is most convenient to that holy action." The innovation then, of substituting pews for the Communion Table, is unnatural in itself, and inconsistent with some of the ends of this ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, as well as a departure from the pattern exhibited by Christ, and followed by the inspired Apostles; and is therefore so far a corruption of the ordinance, and substituting for the institution of Christ the invention of men.

If this corrupt innovation is passed over in silence, and not immediately checked, there is good reason to believe that it will spread. Corruptions very readily spread. Such is the corruption of human nature, that any sinful innovation is readily embraced and followed. But it is of all things most difficult to persuade men to submit their understanding, and conscience, and whole conduct, to the authority of God in his word. While men sleep, the enemy sows tares; and thus, through the supineness of those who ought to be active in the defense of the Gospel, corruptions have been silently and gradually introduced into the Church in every age. The laws of the Church of Scotland against innovations are excellent; and, if duly executed, are well calculated to check that spirit of novelty, of giddiness, of restlessness, and desire of change, so prevalent in this skeptical and innovating age. If a door is once opened to innovations, there are no bounds that can be set to them. The purity and uniformity of our scriptural worship will soon be destroyed, and errors and corruptions of every kind, according to the humor, caprice, or fancied interests of corrupt men, who will privily bring in their own inventions, will soon overspread and deface the glory of our Zion. If there are any Ministers of the Church of Scotland who are dissatisfied with our Established Presbyterian form of worship, and are more attached to the Independent form, they ought publicly to declare so, and leave the Church. In this manner they will act as honest men. But it is quite inconsistent with Christian integrity, in violation of their ordination solemn engagements, thus to disturb the peace of the Church by Independent innovations, to eat the bread of the Established Church of Scotland, and at the same time to lift the heel against her.