Conclusion

I have now endeavored to show that this innovation is in opposition to the example of Christ and the Apostles, at the first institution of our Lord’s Supper after the Passover, where there was such a table as they encompassed, and observed the countenances of each other; -- in opposition to the practice of the inspired Apostles of our Lord, in the apostolic age; -- in opposition to the nature and design of this ordinance, which is a feast of love, where Christians meet at the table of their Lord in holy communion with him, and fellowship with their Christian brethren; and being in opposition to all these is a corrupt innovation. I have endeavored to show that it is in opposition to the practice of the earliest and purest ages of the Christian Church; that the altar, or Communion Table, was a part of the furniture of every Church; that there was only one table or altar in each Church; and that the Communion Table was so placed that it could be encompassed or surrounded by the communicants. I have endeavored to show the danger of innovation, from a review of the corrupt innovations, which, in former ages were gradually introduced, and progressively spread respecting the Lord’s Supper and the Communion Table, which should be a warning to us in these giddy and unstable times. I have endeavored to show that it is in opposition to the laws and practice of the Church of Scotland, from the time of the Reformation; -- in opposition to the Book of Common Order, or Order of Geneva, enacted by the Assembly, 1562 and 1564, which continued to be our Directory of worship, with little interruption, until 1645, when our present Directory was adopted; -- that it is in opposition to our present Directory, taken in connection with the explanations of the Directory in the enactments, sanctioning and establishing it; -- in opposition to the authorized practice of the Church, as founded on the laws; which practice the General Assembly, February 13, 1645, has declared, in opposition to the opinions maintained in the Assembly at Westminster, “to be most agreeable and suitable to the word of God, the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the nature of that heavenly feast and table;” – in opposition to the many laws of the Church against innovations, and the solemn engagements of ministers, to observe, in their practice, the worship presently authorized and practiced, and to follow no divisive courses.

I have also endeavored to answer the arguments urged by those who favor the innovation; and it may be proper to look again at these arguments. They are not taken from the scriptural design and nature of the ordinance, nor from the practice of the first and purest ages of the Christian Church, nor from the laws and authorized practice of the Church of Scotland. No: these I have endeavored to show are all against the innovation. The arguments of those who support the innovation are from conveniency, comfort, worldly gain, shortening the Communion service; that the innovation is what they are pleased to call small and trivial, not worthy of discussion; and that all should be left to act according to their own discretion. Such are their reasonings and arguments; which appear to me to be wholly unworthy of a subject so sacred and important. So long as men are actuated by such views in religious matters, and seek their own conveniency and ease, and to gratify their own humor and fancy, instead of seeking to conform themselves to the institutions of the Gospel, and to please God in the way of submission to his authority, their religious services must be considered as will-worship, and service not required of God. “When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring me no more vain oblations.” How important the direction of the Apostle! “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy, and vain deceit; after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

Our pure and Apostolic form of worship, is the fruit of much toil, patience, and fortitude, of our fathers. They struggled hard for our religious privileges, which are transmitted to us sealed with the blood of martyrs, patriots, and heroes. If we shall wantonly or carelessly innovate upon them, and lose them, we will show little regard to their memory, which ought to be dear to us. We will show little gratitude to God, who protected them by his providence, blessed their exertions, and crowned their pious labors with success; and who has thus distinguished us among the nations by institutions so pure, and conducive, under his blessing, to our spiritual instruction and comfort. All innovations are pretended improvements, but there is a strong tendency in the best religious institutions, as administered by fallible and depraved men to progressive corruption. We should therefore be on our guard. Our fathers have been at great pains to guard against innovations. They left nothing in our religious worship loose, to be changed at discretion. They knew how giddy and fickle men are, how unsatisfied with present things, how desirous to be thought wiser than their fathers, and how fond of change. Hence the many laws of our Church against innovations. Whilst we admire their wisdom, piety, fortitude, and patient investigation and decision, let us now do our duty in holding fast what we have received, and follow these Elders who have obtained a good report through faith.

This matter has already been frequently and solemnly decided. It was decided in the Westminster Assembly, and in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1645. It is decided in all the Acts of the Church against innovations. It is decided in the constant authorized practice of the Church: it is decided by every Probationer at obtaining license to preach the Gospel: and it is decided by every Minister, in voluntarily coming under his ordination engagements. We ought, therefore, to act as honest men before God and the world. It is dangerous, after vows, to make inquiry. I conclude, with stating my approbation of the sentiments of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 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 do we judge that sitting at a table is most convenient to that holy action;” and in their letter to the Westminster Assembly, dated Feb. 13, 1645, “We have thought necessary to declare, and make known, that the clause in the Directory for the administration of the Lord’s Supper, which appointeth the table to be so placed, that the communicants may orderly sit about it, or at it, is not to be interpreted, as if, in the judgment of this Kirk, it were indifferent for any of the communicants not to come to, and receive at the table: in which particulars we still conceive, and believe, the order and practice of our own Kirk to be most agreeable and suitable to the word of God, the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the nature of that heavenly feast and table. Nevertheless, in other particulars we have resolved, and do agree, and we do willingly part with such practices and customs of our own, as may be parted with safely, and without the violation of any of Christ’s ordinances, or trespassing against Scripture rules.”

Finis.