Section Five. Answers to the Arguments in favor of the late Innovation.

Though the innovation introduced into some churches, of excluding the communicants from the Communion Table, and distributing the elements to the communicants sitting in pews, is in direct opposition to the laws and practice of the Established Church of Scotland, and in opposition to the publicly declared doctrine of the Church, “that the table posture is most conformable to the word of God, the example of Christ and the Apostles, and to the nature of that heavenly feast;” yet several arguments are urged in favor of the innovation, by those who have introduced it, or who patronize it. Some of these arguments may be considered and answered.

First. It is argued, that the practice introduced by the innovation, is nearest the pattern of Christ and the Apostles, at the first institution of the ordinance of the Supper, where they all, as a family, sat at one board.

Answer. The sacrament of our Lord’s Supper was instituted by Christ immediately after the celebration of the Jewish Passover. But the ordinance of the Passover was appointed by God to be celebrated in a family capacity (Exod. 12:3-4). If the family were too small, two families were to unite in eating the paschal lamb. It was in this family capacity that Christ and his Apostles then celebrated the Passover, in the evening, according to the Divine institution. Our Savior certainly ought to be imitated in his actions, relating to all the parts of gospel worship, but not in those actions which had a plain reference to Jewish worship, and which were not imitated afterwards by his inspired Apostles. But the practice of the Apostles in after times shows plainly that the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not designed to be celebrated in a family capacity, as the Jewish Passover had been, but in the assembled congregations of the faithful. This is evident from the conduct of the Apostle Paul, who, in his journey towards Jerusalem, came to Troas, and there, with many Christians collected on the occasion, in the public assembly, celebrated this ordinance (Acts 20:7). When the same Apostle corrects the abuses which prevailed in the church at Corinth respecting this ordinance, the language he employs evidently indicates, that it was to be celebrated in the Christian assembly. Hence he speaks of the Corinthians “coming together in the church” (1 Cor. 2:18) and “coming together into one place” (verse 20); and in verse 22, he says, “Have ye not houses to eat and drink in?” or “despise ye the church of God?” etc. These statements of the inspired Apostle, show that the ordinance was to be observed, not in a family capacity, but in the Christians assembly; and his reference to the Communion Table (1 Cor. 10:21) shows, that the table posture was to be observed, as had been done by Christ and the Apostles, at the first institution of the ordinance. If the Communion Table can be conveniently had sufficiently large, it may certainly be desirable, that all the communicants should be at one board or service; but where this cannot be done, a succession of companies coming to the table, appears to be the only way of preserving the table posture in large congregations. But there is neither in Scripture precept nor example, the smallest countenance given to the late corrupt innovation, of making all the communicants turn their backs on one another.

Second. It is argued that the innovation is but small, and of little importance, as it only regards circumstantials, on which little stress need be laid.

Answer. If the innovation is esteemed so small, why make it? It must show a great spirit of novelty when people are so very keen to innovate in a matter that they esteem of so little importance. But every innovation is of importance, that affects the form of our Established worship. The religious feelings and habits of the Christian people, are all connected with those forms of worship, to which, from their earliest years, they have been used. Innovations, therefore, tend to perplex the minds of the worshippers, to disturb their devotions, and to break the peace of the church. This innovation is by no means so trivial and unimportant as is thus supposed, for the Church of Scotland has already in a very solemn manner declared, that this Independent practice is contrary “to the example left us by Christ and the Apostles, and inconsistent with the nature of that heavenly feast;” and this should have great weight, with all the ministers of the Church of Scotland. But though it were a small innovation, which is not granted, small innovations soon prepare the way for greater. There are no bounds to innovations when once they are admitted; and they will very soon deface and destroy the purity and beautiful uniformity of our Established worship. The admission of innovations, as every one may judge advisable, is launching into the boundless ocean, without chart or compass to direct our course; and there is very great danger of ultimately making shipwreck of our Established faith, and Presbyterian form of worship.

Thirdly. It is argued that a Communion Table in the usual form occupies a considerable space in the area of the Church, whereas this new form is more convenient, and yields a greater revenue from letting the pews.

Answer. This a groveling and mercenary idea; and it certainly cannot be endured, that our Established Presbyterian form of worship should be bartered away for worldly gain. Those who for a few shillings would exclude the Communion Table from our Churches; for a few shillings more would part with our Established form of worship altogether. Such an argument does not deserve to be listened to. We must buy the truth at any worldly price, but sell it at no price.

Fourth. It is argued that the plan of communicating in pews is convenient, as any number of pews can be employed, which tends much to shorten the service; which, with a table, sometimes extends to a great length.

Answer. It is granted that every proper arrangement should be made to prevent this solemn service from becoming a mere bodily exercise, by extending it to an unreasonable and fatiguing length; and in large congregations the Communion Table should be large and lengthened in proportion. But whilst this is granted, there can be no good reason for laying aside the Communion Table, and the table posture, and thus to follow a divisive course, in opposition to the Scripture pattern, and the Established form of the Church of Scotland. This is no good reason for abandoning our Presbyterian form of worship, and adopting the unnatural and corrupt form of the Independents, in the holy communion, all turning their backs on one another.

It may also be remarked, that there may be some danger of this service being too much shortened, so as to be injurious to the religious habits and feelings of pious people, whose edification ought to be chiefly considered in dispensing this ordinance. There are some professors of religion who very soon grow weary of devotional exercises. The prophet Malachi speaks of some people in his days, who said respecting Divine worship, “Behold, what a weariness is it!” and who manifested much profane disregard to the service of God, “offering the blind and the lame for sacrifice,” to whom the table of “the Lord was contemptible.” Are there not many people still among ourselves of the same character? And is there not great danger in studying to please the taste and feelings of such people in the manner of dispensing Divine ordinances? Nothing can be more hurtful to religion, than an endeavor to accommodate its services to the taste and habits of profane, skeptical, or ungodly men; or to the humors and feelings of worldly and nominal professors. This has, in every age of the Church, been a fruitful source of many heresies and errors, both in doctrine and worship. In every case we should adhere to the law and the testimony, and the enactment of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland against innovations, 1707, “That nothing is to be admitted in the worship of God but what is prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.”

Fifth. It is argued that when our Lord miraculously fed the multitude with a few loaves and fishes, they were made to sit down in ranks of fifties and hundreds, and that this bears the most striking resemblance to the Communion service, with which we are furnished in the whole inspired volume.

Answer. There is no intimation in the whole inspired volume, that this was intended as a pattern for the manner in which we should celebrate the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. In the first institution of this ordinance, our Lord hath left us a pattern of the form and manner in which we should commemorate his dying love, and to that pattern he hath added a precept, “This do in remembrance of me,” which precept should be considered enjoining, not only the performance of the duty, but also the external manner of performing that holy action, at least so far as was afterwards followed by the inspired Apostles, whose practice is the best comment on our Lord’s example and precept. But the pattern which Christ and his Apostles have left, exhibits them encompassing or surrounding the first Communion Table, with every external token of mutual love, and communion with Christ, and one another, and directly opposite to the attitude assumed by those who follow the late innovation.

To neglect this example and command of our Lord, and search for, and grasp at, other parts of his conduct, which were never intended as a pattern in this particular service, to justify us in so doing, is to pervert the precepts and example of our Lord. It shows, in a striking manner, the power of that spirit of novelty and self-will which leads us to gratify our own humor, convenience, or fancy, instead of making conscience of religious duty, and submitting to the authority of God in his word.

Sixth. It is argued, that on my scheme there should never be more than twelve persons present at the communion, and that all these should be men, nay, apostles, and they should meet in a large upper room, and they should be reclining on a sofa, of an oval form, open at one end, with some kind of table, and all this at the hour of supper.

Answer. There certainly should be a table, and the usual table posture of the country should be observed by the communicants, who approach to, and surround the Communion Table. There certainly was a table at the first institution, and the usual table posture of the land of Judea at the Passover feast, was, no doubt, observed by our Lord and his Apostles, who surrounded the table. But the after practice of the Apostles, under the influence of the Spirit of inspiration, shows plainly, that several circumstances here referred to, as connected with the Jewish Passover, were peculiar to the first institution of the ordinance, and not intended by our Lord to be continued in his Church under the Gospel. There is no evidence that the Apostles, in dispensing our Lord’s Supper afterwards, limited the number of communicants to twelve, or any other definite number, or that it was exclusively dispensed to men, and apostles, or that it was celebrated only at the hour of supper. On the contrary, the example at Troas (Acts 20) exhibits the reverse of all this. There the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper was dispensed in the assembly of Christians, collected from different places, without any distinction of sex, or official situation, or character, not at the hour of supper, but in open day, although the evening sermon was continued to a late hour. The practice of the inspired Apostles, who received the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth, is the best exposition of the circumstances connected with the original institution, some of which were peculiar to the Passover; and we should be followers of them, as they were of Christ. But the express mention of, and reference to, a Communion Table or Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 10:21) is an evidence of the practice which they followed, and that the table posture was designed to be continued in the Christian Church.

Seventh. It is argued, that the word table is sometimes used in a figurative sense, to signify the food by which it is covered.

Answer. This is admitted; but there could be no figurative use of the word, unless it had also a literal meaning. There was literally a table used by our Lord and the Apostles at the first institution, the very table they had used at the Passover supper, and the after-mentioning of the Lord’s table, and allusion to it by the Apostle, even though the word may be used in a figurative sense, has a reference to the literal meaning, and shows the practice which obtained, and was approved by the inspired Apostle.

Eighth. It is argued, that the minds of devout worshippers should be principally employed about the one thing needful, the commemoration of the Redeemer’s death, and the pleasing anticipation of an eternal feast, and that attending to the form of the table, is like paying tithes of mint, anise, and cumin, and neglecting the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.

Answer. This argument takes it for granted, that those who follow this innovation of communicating in pews are more attentive to the one thing needful, than those who communicate at the Communion Table, which requires to be proved; and which, I apprehend, will be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove. It is true that the spiritual exercises of the heart are to be chiefly attended to in every part of religious worship. But external scriptural forms of worship are themselves parts of divine worship, and subservient to the promoting of the religious feelings and exercises of the heart; and to undervalue, despise, or neglect these scriptural forms, and teach men so, is to act in opposition to the authority of our Lord, who declares, that whosoever shall break one of the least commandments, and teach men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. The weightier matters of the law should certainly be attended to, but the smaller matters must not be neglected. The words of our Lord to this purpose should not be forgotten: “These things ought you to have done, and not leave the other undone.” Much is said about the comfort of communicating in pews. If bodily comfort is meant, I cannot perceive how more comfort can be enjoyed sitting in a pew, than sitting at the Communion Table. If spiritual comfort is intended, I apprehend that this is to be most readily enjoyed in this holy service, when we are following the example and precepts of Christ. Now, it is not pretended that sitting in pews at the communion is more conform to the example and precepts of Christ, than sitting at the Communion Table.

Ninth. It is argued, “the word innovation has little tendency to create alarm in a mind accustomed to deliberate reflection;” and that ministers may do in this matter as suits the conveniency of their church.

Answer. Every innovation on the form of our Established worship, has or ought to have, a tendency to excite alarm in all those who regard it with proper esteem. The many laws of the Church of Scotland against innovations in the form of our Established worship, and the very solemn obligations laid on all preachers of the Gospel, and ministers of the Church of Scotland, to conform to the worship presently authorized and practiced in our National Church, and to preserve its purity and uniformity, show, in a very striking manner, the anxious care of our Church to guard against these innovations, for which some persons feel no alarm. If every minister is allowed to act as he judges most convenient in his own church, or as may be suitable to what he considers his own enlarged and liberal principles, the beautiful uniformity of our Established worship will very soon be destroyed. Such extensive discretionary power, and latitude of conduct, is utterly inconsistent with any legally established form of worship. The late innovation exhibits, in a high degree, the fatal effects of these liberal views, as they are called. In the city of Glasgow, when the sacrament is dispensed, in some churches the communicants all sit at, or about the Communion Table as the law directs; in some churches the communicants sit in pews, according to the late innovation; in some churches there is a mixed mode of administration; part of the communicants receive the elements at the Communion Table, and part of them receive them sitting in pews. In those congregations, also, who communicate in the pews, part of them do so in the pews in which they usually sit through the year, having occupied them during the time of the sermon preceding; and part of them have not that indulgence, but go to pews in which they do not usually sit, but to which they are only admitted to communicate. Any stranger passing through the city of Glasgow, and looking into these churches on a communion Sabbath, would never suppose that they were all belonging to the same Established Church, who all observed their own particular form of worship. These things may be called liberal, and the effect of enlarged views; but they are contrary to all order and decency. It belongs to the very nature of a religious establishment, that there be uniformity in doctrine and worship; and the laws of the Church of Scotland are well calculated to preserve, and transmit to posterity, our Established form of worship, in all its purity and uniformity.

Tenth. It is argued, that the subject of dispute is scarcely worthy of discussion in Church judicatories.

Answer. This may be the opinion of some; but the Church of Scotland has been of a very different opinion. The commissioners from the Church of Scotland, to the Assembly at Westminster, had to discuss that matter for three full months, in that Assembly; and the matter was afterwards discussed in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in the year 1645, and then finally decided, and set at rest, by a solemn and unanimous decision of the General Assembly. No part of our Established worship has been more the subject of deliberate discussion, than that respecting the Communion Table, and the mode of dispensing the sacrament of our Lord’s Supper. It was the object of our fathers, that the form of dispensing that ordinance should be reduced as nearly as possible to the Scripture pattern. I can then see no good object the innovators can have in view, in reviving an old heresy in worship, already condemned by the Church of Scotland, and rejected as inconsistent with the nature of that heavenly feast, and not conform to the example of Christ and his Apostles. It shows a great spirit of self-will, and self-sufficiency, in any minister, to introduce innovations contrary to the form of worship presently authorized and practiced in our Church. It is a violation of all good order, and their own solemn vows. If any part of our Established worship, in their opinion, needs to be corrected, let them bring the matter before the judicatories of the Church, when the subject will be deliberated on, and determined according to the lawful form and order; but it cannot be endured that any individual, or a few individuals, should break the peace of the Church, by following divisive courses, in opposition to the established laws.

Much is said by those who favor the innovation about the disorder, bustle, and confusion of many people pressing forward at one time, to obtain seats at the Communion Table, where only a small portion can be accommodated; and this has been much exaggerated, and considered a good reason for the innovation. But the same disorder and confusion must take place, if a much greater number of people press forward to a pew than can be accommodated; and therefore this argument makes nothing, either for or against the innovation. It is a good reason for making proper arrangements, that there be easy access to, and egress from, the Communion Table, and that it be extended in proportion to the number of communicants, that the service be not protracted to a fatiguing and unnecessary length; but it is no reason for laying aside the Communion Table, and adopting the very indecent, unnatural, and unscriptural mode of making the communicants sit in pews, and turn their backs on one another.

It is very easy to ascertain the number that can be accommodated at the Communion Table at one time, and such directions given, and arrangements made, that no more people come from their seats at one time, than can be accommodated.

It is in a peculiar manner of duty of Presbyteries to attend to this matter. No church can be built in Scotland, but under the authority and with the approbation of the Presbytery of the bounds. Before it be proceeded in, they should have the plan of the church laid before them, and be satisfied that it be sufficient for accommodating the parishioners, and have everything requisite for performing every part of the public worship of God, according to the laws of the Church, and the laws of the land; and particularly that there be a Communion Table, and that it be large in proportion to the number of the parishioners, and that there be convenient and easy access to it, and egress from it. The system of Communion pews is not recognized by the laws and practice of the Church of Scotland; but it is provided that every kirk be provided with a Communion Table, in the First Book of Discipline, agreed on by the General Assembly, 1560. A Communion Table is also provided for by the twenty-second Parliament of James VI, chap. vi. in the year 1617; and Presbyteries are empowered and directed by that Act, to see the law carried into effect. Presbyteries should also exercise the power vested in them by the laws of the church, and of the land, in guarding against all innovations in the public worship of God within their bounds, in checking every tendency to follow divisive courses, and in preserving entire, and transmitting to posterity, the purity and uniformity of worship as presently authorized and practiced in our Established Church, and as enjoined by the General Assembly, Feb. 3, 1645 – “Take special notice of the observation or neglect of the directory for worship, in every congregation within their bounds, and make known the same to the Provincial, or General Assembly, as there shall be cause.”

Eleventh. It is argued that there is no particular form of the Communion Table prescribed, and therefore pews may be used, in which the communicants sit in parallel rows; with their faces to the minister.

Answer. The constant authorized practice of the Church fixes the form of the Communion Table, and every person in Scotland knows that sitting in pews is not our table posture at a feast; and far less the authorized posture to which Christians in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland have been accustomed in celebrating this feast of Divine love. It is not so much to turn their faces to the minister, and attend to him, that Christians go to a Communion Table, as to enjoy communion with their Lord, and with one another, and their external posture there, should exhibit some token of that spiritual communion, which turning their backs on one another does not exhibit. Besides, the authorized practice of the Church is the law in this case; for all ministers are taken bound, in the most solemn manner, “to maintain and defend the doctrine and worship of the Established Church of Scotland as presently authorized and practiced, and contained in the fifteenth Act of the General Assembly, 1707, and to follow no divisive courses from said doctrine and worship.” Those, therefore, who designedly follow innovations in either doctrine or worship, violate their ordination vows.