Appendix. A Short Review.

[p. 185 — Appendix title page]

APPENDIX.

A SHORT REVIEW

OF

MR MASON’S LETTERS ON COMMUNION.

---

FOR the abilities of this author, the writer of the present review acknowledges great respect. In the compilation, quaintly entitled, “First Ripe Fruits,” there are pieces which do honour to the powers of his mind, to his eloquence, and to his piety. The “Letters on “Communion” come in for their share of this just tribute of praise. It is to be feared, however, they have served the cause of Independency beyond what Mr Mason himself either apprehended or would have wished. If we may judge from their tendency, they have produced in some, and cherished in others, the idea, that, according to the plan hitherto followed, the rulers of the church have been tyrannically infringing on Christian liberty, and imposing on the consciences of the people; they have thus encouraged a spirit of insubordination, not only inimical to the peace and order of the church, but to the interests of religion in general. The fervour of piety which glows in almost every page, must have greatly conduced to these unhappy effects. Had Mr Mason, before he adopted the style and manner of writing employed in his Letters, looked to the probable consequences, pondered these in his mind, and considered at the same time, that he was striking out against what deserved to be respectfully treated,—a plan very generally approved and received,—he would doubtless have proceeded with greater caution. There were other methods to which he might easily have had recourse, and methods more worthy of a Presbyterian pastor. The reformation designed, if it did not go all the length of establishing weekly communion, was not so very important as to warrant his attempting to expose to public odium the

[p. 186]

practice of the Presbyterian churches, or representing that practice as in fact a reception of the “bequests of Rome,” an imitation of “the “precedents she had set.” Boldness in the cause of truth, or of what we apprehend to be so, is commendable: We must take care, however, lest by our boldness we stumble the brethren, and cause many to offend. “A prudent man dealeth with knowledge.”

But passing these consequences, the very spirit of the Letters, and the plan they would establish, seems in various respects unfriendly to Presbyterian communion. In them, the design of the Lord’s Supper in regard to the visible church, and the holy profession of Christians, is greatly overlooked, if not entirely set aside. The chain of reasoning employed, goes to support and vindicate weekly dispensation; and the author, feeling the tendency of his argument, has not, in several instances, concealed his disposition to acquiesce in this plan. These, however, we may regard as but a species of involuntary concessions which could not well be avoided, for the object of the Letters was not to recommend its adoption. They were obviously designed only to bring about a more frequent dispensation than at present obtains. Were we induced to judge from the elaborate discussion on the observance of days, we might suspect that the main drift of the work was to have these days, so unrighteously “wedded to the ordinance,” discarded; and that the argument of frequency was chosen as best suited to accomplish the end. If so, it was natural for the mind to be engrossed with the idea of spiritual utility, and it would be unjust to charge the author with wilfully neglecting, or keeping out of sight other ends for which the ordinance was expressly designed. He meant not, neither came it into his heart, to sap the foundations of Presbyterian communion, or introduce such a plan as would change at length the face of the church. Whatever was his original purpose, he would certainly deplore the effect, were every vestige of that diffusive demonstration of unity abolished, which has so long been kept up by means of the Supper, and for which the ordinance was evidently provided.

In the execution of the work, there are two grand fallacies to be marked; a few reflections on these may shorten our review of the Letters.

First, The author all along confounds frequent communicating with a frequent dispensation of the ordinance in the same place. It may be uncharitable to ascribe this to design, but the argument certainly required it; for should it appear, or even be allowed to occur to the reader, that though the Supper be not frequently dispensed in the same place, yet there might be—as there is in fact on the plan pre-

[p. 187]

sently followed,—abundant scope for frequent communicating, the argument is lost. The reader must think with himself, What does Mr Mason mean by frequent communion? If it refer to the duty of Christians, there can be no objection against stating the obligations to it, and awakening to a sense of its importance. But the title is ambiguous. If it bear on the plan of procedure in ecclesiastical administration, the reasoning ought to run in a different channel; it ought not to be that sort of dealing we would employ with the careless and supine, to rouse them to embrace every opportunity of shewing the Lord’s death; but argument drawn from the nature and ends of the ordinance, to shew that sufficient regard is not had to these in the present plan, and that therefore the plan ought to be changed. Unless it can be proved that the infrequent dispensation of the Supper in the same congregation, lays an embargo on the duty of Christians, and prevents a due regard to the ordinance, declamation on their duty from the topics of love, gratitude, &c. should have no place in the controversy. But even as matters stand, there are sufficient opportunities for frequent communion. How often would Mr Mason wish the Supper to be kept? Four, five, or six times a-year? The members of that congregation with which the reviewer is connected, tho’ the ordinance be dispensed in it only twice, have opportunity of communicating, all of them, four or five, and some of them nine times a-year. There are other congregations much more happily situated. Frequent communion, then, in the sense to which Mr Mason’s reasoning chiefly applies, and frequent dispensation in the same place are quite different things. Nay, I am convinced they are so very different, that the latter would be most unfriendly to the former. What was the consequence when weekly dispensation obtained in the primitive ages? To mark it, we have only to recur to that passage in the Institutes of Calvin, of which such advantage has been taken, “Seldom, if ever, did all the members, even of the same assembly, “join in the celebration*.” This Calvin allows to have been the case, and therefore defends Zepherinus as having consulted the interests of religion in ordaining a less frequent dispensation. Suppose the Supper dispensed six, eight, or ten times in the same congregation, would there be no danger of Christians neglecting the fellowship of their brethren in other congregations, and—to use the words of Calvin on annual communions,—“conceiting they had fully discharged their duty, giving themselves up for the rest of the year to supineness and “sloth*?” By frequent dispensation they might be more easily ac-

_____

* Lett. iii. p. 43.

[p. 188]

commodated with their privilege, but it would be at the expense of the one great design for which the ordinance of communion was appointed.

The 2d fallacy is the native result of what has just been remarked. The author, confounding frequent communicating with frequent dispensation in the same place, probably because he considered them as inseparably connected, and essentially dependent on each other, so that without the latter the former could not exist, has all along, in pleading the cause of frequency, confined his own attention, and that of the reader, to the spiritual utility of the Lord’s Supper. This idea, and this alone, will be found to pervade all the views of the ordinance brought forward in the second letter. He proposes to detail the ends for which it was appointed, and which believers will find it calculated to serve, but he ever keeps by the single thought of spiritual advantage; and the detail is, in fact, only a diffuse dissertation on one design God had in view; excellently adapted it may be for animating Christians to their duty, and encouraging the faithful in their holy service, but very defective if intended to prove, as the title should have borne, and is meant to bear, that ‘frequent dispensation in the ‘same place is indispensibly requisite.’ The first position may seem to be an exception, and it is the only one where the author had nigh stumbled on something else than spiritual advantage. But it was a position that could not be passed, and it is happily placed in the front, since when once got over, the way was clear for descanting at large on the favourite theme, and thus leaving the intended impression on the mind. The position is this, ‘The sacrament of the Supper, (the observance of it the author surely means) is an important part of our practical testimony to the cross.’ If so, it might seem to demand a publicity, to which even frequent dispensation in the same place would in due time be found to be fatal. But in the illustration, the author runs directly into the notion of spiritual advantage; ‘This holy ordinance contributes as much, if not more,’ why this tardy concession, but because it is expedient to reduce the Supper as nearly as possible to a level with other institutions?—‘it contributes ‘as much, if not more than any other, to keep alive in the earth the ‘memory of that sacrifice, which, through the eternal Spirit, our ‘High Priest offered up unto God. In a powerful appeal to the ‘senses, it arrests attention and strikes with awe, while the scenes of ‘Gethsemane and Calvary pass along in review.’ This last sentence is of a piece with the commentary which occurs but a little before on the words of Jesus, ‘Here is the symbol of my broken body, and here of my streaming blood.’ But these are only

[p. 189]

the slips of pathetic description, for the author certainly does not consider the ordinance of the Supper as a re-exhibition of the crucifixion of Christ. So soon, however, as he leaves the idea of spiritual advantage, he is off his ground, and has to walk with great caution; ‘In this holy ordinance, we proclaim to surrounding spectators, that we are not ashamed to confess the despised Jesus before a crooked and perverse generation,’ &c. The publicity that would here press forward is immediately guarded and limited, that it might not interfere even with weekly administration. The observance of the Supper is allowed to be public, in distinction from family worship; social, in distinction from baptism; and discriminating in distinction from other services of the sanctuary. But farther he does not proceed on this head.

The view of the ordinance is carried on as follows, ‘It is, 2dly, an affecting representation of the communion believers have with Christ Jesus; 3dly, An exhibition of their union and communion with one another.’ Here something relative to its use for the manifestation of unity in visible profession, might have been expected. But this had been foreign to the drift of the letter: it might have suggested thoughts unfriendly to that limitation of visible fellowship to single congregations, which must be produced by frequent observance in the same place. The utility of the ordinance as visibly expressive of the spiritual communion of all saints is alone brought into view. ‘It shews, that they being many are one body.’ In what respects? Why—‘partakers of a common salvation, heirs of a common inheritance, having one faith,’ (the principle or grace appears from the connection to be meant,) ‘one calling, one hope;’ it is thus allowed to be ‘the communion of the body and blood of Christ,’ and celebrated as a ‘thrice blessed ordinance, which clothes spiritual principle with visible form.’ See on this subject our remarks, Sect. II. conclus. 3.

The author goes on, ‘4thly, The death of Christ commemorated in the Supper, is a point in which the leading doctrines of revelation concentrate their rays, and where they shine with united lustre.’ The illustration, however, has no respect to that glorying in the cross of Christ according to the idea suggested, which belongs to the Christian profession; but solely to the spiritual benefit we may reap from ‘contemplating the infinite evil of sin, the justice of God in the punishment of it, the riches of the Father’s grace, the Love of Christ, and the harmony of the divine attributes in the recovery of sinners.’ As we proceed, we meet still with the same prospect of spiritual benefit held out in other views. For, ‘5thly, The death of Christ has a mighty efficacy in quickening the graces, and mortifying the cor-

[p. 190]

ruptions of believers: And, lastly, In the holy Supper they are admitted to near intercourse with the God of the spirits of all flesh.’ Here however the author again finds it necessary to qualify his commendations: ‘Not,’ says he, ‘because the Supper is more holy than other ordinances, or because access to God therein is in itself more near, but he will put a special honour upon it, and upon them who love it, because it is that ordinance which in a special manner puts honour on his Son Jesus.’ How difficult must the author have found it, so to commend the Supper as to produce the intended impression, and yet guard against elevating it above the ordinary institutions of grace! We contend for no peculiar holiness, which is but an ambiguous term liable to great misconstruction, but for peculiar design and the obvious requisites to fulfil it in the mode and times of dispensation. To parody the author’s address, which he has put in the mouth of the apostle Paul on supposition he were now to appear, we may with equal justice conceive the apostle posing the friends of weekly communion with such enquiries as these; ‘How do you observe the great ordinance of communion? Do you use it according to the mind of the Lord, for displaying to the world your unity in holy profession and attachment to the doctrines of the cross, for visibly attesting this unity among yourselves, confirming and sealing it throughout the body? Have you, wholly attentive to your own advantage, neglected that of the church, or the general interests of religion, and overlooked the respect that your Lord had to these? Have you, on pretence of seeking spiritual benefit, and mindful of this alone, defeated in a great measure one special object he had in view; established a disconnected plan of observance, and thrust the celebration into corners? Is there not at least the appearance of selfishness here? Lay aside these partial views, and restore the sacramental feast of fellowship to that mode of celebration it requires*.’

Letter III. takes up the first expected objection,—Innovation. Here we admit his position, ‘That if the measure proposed (by which surely must be meant frequent, if not weekly, dispensation in the same place,) be our duty, it is high time the innovation was made.’ But it will not be so easily admitted, that ‘he has proved,’ as he affirms he has done, that measure either to be needful or duty, by the partial and irrelevant view of the ordinance presented in the preceding letter. He would now shew, however, that so far from being an

_____

* See the peroration with which Lett. ii. is concluded.

[p. 191]

innovation, the adoption of the measure proposed would be only the restitution of ‘what was the order of the church from the beginning.’ To this purpose he appeals to Acts xx. 7. And from his remarks on this passage we learn for the first time what we are to understand by the measure proposed: ‘Weekly communions were the constant practice of the primitive Christians.’ How does he make this out? ‘The words intimate that sacramental communion was a principal, if ‘not the principal object of their meeting.’ No doubt it was, in the instance and on the occasion referred to. They came together that Sabbath the apostle was with them, expressly to break bread. But what then? ‘Prayer, praise, and the preaching of the word were ‘their stated exercises, but of such moment was the Supper considered, that in recording their employment on the Sabbath, the sacred historian mentions nothing else,—they came together to break bread.’ Mr Mason found it necessary to account for the historian’s specifying so particularly the breaking of bread, and has exerted his ingenuity to convert it to his own purpose; for in fact that very specification, since prayer, praise, and preaching, were the stated exercises, intimates something peculiar in the occasion referred to. The disciples at that time came together to break bread: It was to be a sacramental Sabbath. Had the Supper been one of the stated ordinances, the historian would naturally have mentioned only the “meeting on the first day of the week,” and the notice of its dispensation as a thing of course, would have occurred merely in the account of the exercises which took place.—“Paul having preached, and broken bread, and discoursed a long while after, even till break of day, departed.”

To the remarks already made, Sect. IV. on this passage, and on the other, 1 Cor. xi. 20. which are the only ones produced by Mr Mason to ascertain the practice in the apostolic age, the Reviewer has nothing to add. Nor does he think it necessary, after what has been stated in the same section, to trace the history of communicating down to the age of Reformation, or enter into new discussions on the opinions of the reformers.

In the next letter the objections, ‘that frequent communicating would banish reverence, and prevent preparation,’ are attacked with considerable success. Various considerations exceedingly just, and happily expressed, worthy the attention of those who would excuse themselves from their duty by taking advantage of the Presbyterian plan, are here brought forth. We allow them all their force in their direction against ‘the formalist, the hypocrite, the Pharisaic Christian. ‘One hour, one minute of genuine humiliation, one tear of gracious

[p. 192]

contrition, one groan unutterable of the Spirit of adoption, is of more value in the sight of God, than the most splendid round of formalities.’ The former indeed are of no more value as a ground of acceptance in the Lord’s Supper, than the latter; but if there be any who plead want of preparation from the impracticability of observing the days usually appointed, as a reason for not joining with their brethren in other congregations, or for dispensing with that frequent communicating for which opportunities may be afforded, they abuse the Presbyterian plan, and expose the very form of preparation they mean to support. Such Christians seem to indicate, that they consider preparation as restricted to the round of external formalities, and by their conduct defeat the purpose of a circulation of fellowship throughout the body.

If however the reasoning be meant to prove that there is no distinction among divine institutions, as is obvious from the argument brought forward, ‘that God is not more holy in one than in another;’ if it also go the length of subverting the necessity of a regard to warranted means of preparation, because the bare observance of these belongs but to the form of godliness, then, on the first head we have endeavoured to detect its absurdity in our second section; and on the other, it is only needful to remark, that the power of godliness is by no means inconsistent with the form. Are we to discard days of fasting in every instance, because ‘one hour, or minute of genuine ‘contrition before God, is of more value in his sight, than a round ‘of formalities?’ On this principle, the observance of the Supper itself might be entirely set aside; one spiritual act of gratitude in remembrance of Christ, is more pleasing in God’s sight, than the most frequent participation of symbols. The argument ought to have been guarded, but had it been guarded, it would have failed in its application to Mr M.’s purpose. We are the less concerned with the objections discussed in this letter, as they are not much connected with the principles on which we defend the Presbyterian plan of observance. But however ‘truly astonishing it may be that they should ‘ever be brought forth by a living Christian,’ Calvin and other reformers, though they do not make nor sanction the objections, yet allow that they must be attended to, in settling the plan of observance. The question is not what Christians ought to be, but what they really are, and may be expected to be in this imperfect state. And we have seen that God himself in diversifying his system of ordinances, was not unmindful of their state. “He knoweth our frame.” Mr Mason appeals to fact, ‘Do other duties grow contemptible by

[p. 193]

their frequency,—prayer for instance?’ We may appeal to facts more pertinent: ZEPHERINUS found that weekly dispensation produced, not only irreverence, but disorder; CALVIN allows that he consulted the interests of religion in altering the plan; he himself was afraid of weekly communion; WITSIUS was ‘not without apprehension that such frequency might depreciate the ordinance;’ none of the reformed churches found it expedient to ordain such frequency. But expediency is not the ground on which we support the Presbyterian method; and that method is so favourable to the frequency of communicating claimed by the ordinance, that Presbyterian pastors, in exhorting their people to their duty, find abundant scope for taking off the force of the very palliations and excuses referred to in the objections.

Having dispatched the subject of frequency, that of the observance of days is next introduced. Here we meet with an elaborate discussion. Though the subject is brought in merely as a fourth objection against the measure proposed, yet it is protracted through no less than four letters, and occupies nearly the half of the book. A final blow to what he is pleased to call ‘the customary appendages to the Lord’s ‘Supper, the redundancies of human fancy,’ was doubtless intended. One reflection naturally occurs on reading the title, ‘Of the customary appendages, particularly public Fasts and Thanksgivings,’ no word of Preparation-days; why are they overlooked? Is it because they may be borne with? One would have thought the very idea of preparation had been offensive to the Author. Is it because the topics of declamation against the Fast and Thanksgiving days are more numerous, and afford the most spacious reasoning? To charge him with such motives might be uncharitable. On looking into the Letters we find that he has no objection against at least a preparation sermon; he even attempts in a note an apology for it. Besides, something of the kind is allowed to be proper in certain Confessions and public deeds, which he would have us to believe are wholly on his side, and utterly hostile to the practice of others who adhere to them. Yet his very argument, ‘that the Church of Scotland from ‘the dawn of the Reformation till 1638, indulged but one sentiment ‘as to the administration of the sacraments, viz. that it was not to be ‘encumbered with any rites contrary to, or beside the written word*;’ —this argument militates equally against a Preparation sermon, or day, as against the Fast and Thanksgiving days. The former as really

_____

* P. 83.

[p. 194]

as the latter are ‘beside the written word,’ in the sense affixed by Mr M. to the term; and embracing the view which depends on that sense, he must discard the one as well as the other. The fact is, the rites opposed, were, as Mr M. allows, the Popish and Prelatical ceremonies in the form of administration and reception. That the acts he has quoted, lay down a universal rule against ‘the imposition of rites ‘and observances which have no foundation in the word of God,’ is readily granted; but then in the same sense in which he apprehends this applies against Fast and Thanksgivings days, it must apply against all forms of preparation; even a sermon for the bare purpose of distributing tokens, is beside the written word; and if solely intended for that purpose, more so, than any observances in the usual Presbyterian method.

A 2d remark is suggested by the length of the discussion. Mr M. having introduced the subject as an objection which weighs much with conscientious people against his measure, evidently takes it up, not according to the true principles on which the days in question are defended, and capable of defence, but according to the absurd, and perhaps superstitious views which some who would be religious over-much, or have a zeal not altogether produced and directed by knowledge, entertain. This gives him an easy advantage, and furnishes matter for many pages that might well have been spared*. The ‘samples of inconsistence and contradiction,’ he professes to exhibit seem to be fabrications of his own mind; and the charge he brings against the supporters of days, of ‘beating the air,’ may well be retorted on himself. He approaches the point only when, page 68. he comes to consider the propriety of fasting ‘in view of some special duty, or in expectation of some special blessings.’

3dly, In managing the objection, he seems to reason in a circle. The objection imports, that the measure proposed requires such frequency as would be incompatible with the observance of the usual days. One part of the answer is, that this observance of days ‘is ‘attended with great and serious evils†.’ To prove this, we are told, that among other evils, ‘the multiplicity of week-day services is in-‘compatible with the frequency intended‡.’

Owing to the indeterminate form in which he has taken up the subject, it would be tedious to follow him through all his discussion. A fair statement of its substance may be sufficient to expose its al-

_____

* P. 61—67.

† Page 60. 95.

‡ P. 99.

[p. 195]

most perpetual deviation from the point. The FIRST part of his method is to shew, ‘That sacramental fast and thanksgiving days have no warrant from the word of God.’ If by warrant he means express appointment, it is granted there is none; but in this sense, there is no warrant in the New Testament for any fast, or thanksgiving days whatever. Had the exercise of fasting been, by divine institution, appointed to precede the celebration of the Supper, it had been as essential to the right observance of that ordinance, as it was on the day of annual atonement among the Jews; in no case could it ever have been dispensed with, nor could any individual who had not opportunity of joining with his brethren of other congregations in their sacramental fast, have warrantably communicated with them in the Supper. Divine wisdom hath laid no such bar in the way of that fellowship for which the ordinance was expressly designed; and since we have never pleaded for fasting or thanksgiving as essentially requisite, we are not confounded by the wonderful discovery, that there is no specific ordination of such days, nay, not even a passage from which we may infer an inseparable connection between them and the holy Supper. Mr M. manifestly perplexes the question, while he professes to state it in the most accurate terms. ‘It is not,’ says he, ‘whether fasting is a divine ordinance; but whether it is a divine ordinance preparative to the Lord’s Supper?’ From what has been already observed, it must appear, that this never was, nor can be the question, unless the notion of fastings being absolutely essential were held. The point at issue is not, as the statement implies, whether fasting has been specifically ordained as a part of necessary preparation for keeping the Supper? for there is no divinely instituted ritual of fasts or thanksgivings enjoined to the New Testament church; the appointment of these rests with her courts. The question therefore is precisely in the first instance, what Mr M. would set aside, ‘whether fasting be a divine ordinance?’ He seems indeed to suppose that there are texts which exhibit general warrants for fasting, without respect to the circumstances in which it ought to take place; and alludes with no little indignation, to ‘a large column of these’ he has somewhere seen raised up against his proposed measure. I know no general warrant for fasting, or texts which exhibit it as a duty in general, without bearing, one way or another, on the circumstances in which it either may or ought to take place. Were there any such, then fasts referable to no special occasion would be

_____

* P. 66.

[p. 196]

warranted, and it would be needless any farther to debate whether the sacrament of the Supper be a special occasion or not. By the nature of the warrants, however, the question is narrowed to this point, Is fasting suitable, seasonable, and proper, before the celebration of the Supper? That it is we have endeavoured to shew in Sect. V. and also that on this ground Sessions are so vindicated, or have such sufficient warrant for making the appointment, that obedience is due by those under their inspection. Mr M. apprehends that our warrants ‘will equally prove the necessity of fasting before baptism, before the ‘Sabbath, before family worship, or craving a blessing to our meat, ‘as before the sacrament of the Supper, unless they can be shewn to have been coupled with the latter, and not with the former*.’ Baptism is a sacrament as really as the Supper, and from this consideration the inuendo of its being degraded by the want of a previous fast, may be apt to impose on some. But as baptism is not a congregational nor general concern like the Supper, it would be improper to appoint a public fast in prospect of its administration†. If the person shall choose to seek the Lord by fasting and prayer, with a view to the reception of this ordinance by himself or his children, he would not certainly act an unwarrantable part, not even though as patriarch in his own house, he appointed a family fast. Mr M.’s own reason for discarding the fast with a view to weekly communion, is sufficient to expose the absurdity of ordaining such preparation for the Sabbath. ‘It would be a burden to which no congregation either would or should submit. The tribute of time which would be withdrawn from their ordinary occupations, would be much too great ‘for any who eat their bread in the sweat of their brow.’ As for fasting before craving a blessing to our meat, it is only brought in to caricature the subject, and is therefore utterly unworthy of notice.

What has been observed, may be sufficient to take off the force of the remark made with critical acuteness on the words of the Directory, p. 88. as well as of the bold assertions, p. 105. while it suggests also a solution of the problem considered in the note at the foot of this last page. ‘There is,’ says Mr M. p. 88. ‘a small letter in one of the places cited from the Directory, which completely ruins the cause the citation was intended to support. It does not say in the administration of the sacrament, but sacraments, including bap-

____

* P. 66.

† Mr M. admits the distinction himself, and has expressed it with sufficient accuracy, p. 18. ‘In holy baptism our profession is separate and public, but not social, at least very imperfectly so.’

[p. 197]

tism, and making this to be an occasion no less special than the Supper. So that if the argument, shape it as you please, prove any thing, it proves that the Directory prescribes a public fast as often as a child is baptized. Unless this be admitted, the foundation is swept away, and the fabric of itself tumbles to the ground.’ The Directory was never appealed to as prescribing any fast in the one case or the other, but merely as admitting that the sacraments are special occasions; and therefore not ‘hostile’ to the propriety of seeking the Lord by fasting and prayer in prospect of them. The exercise pertains to the persons particularly concerned; Sessions may call to it in prospect of the Supper, but they have no power to appoint personal or family fasts. Instead therefore of ‘establishing a pernicious distinction between the two sacraments,’ p. 105. while Sessions fulfil what belongs to their province, their appointments in regard to the Supper, rather tend to inspire a proper respect for the other sacrament, and intimate the exercise to be suitable in private for those who are concerned in its administration. If the fact be otherwise, as Mr M. complains, and with too much reason, p. 106. we can only deplore it. The wisest regulations are liable to abuse. Because parents cannot reasonably expect a whole congregation should be called to seek the Lord by fasting and prayer, with a view to the baptism of their children, it would be absurd and impious for them to conclude, that therefore baptism is a trivial matter. Let them learn what account to make of this ordinance, which they know to be equally a sacrament, from the manner of the church in observing the Supper, and be admonished to discover in its sphere the same sacred veneration. As for the mighty problem, ‘How many communicants are requisite to a public fast?’—just as many, we reply, as may constitute a public communion. Whether ‘two’ can do so, as well as ‘ten thousand,’ is left to Mr M. to determine. Were fasting essential to right observance, or coupled with the Supper by positive institution, which had been very strange, then no doubt it behoved to have obtained, however small the number of communicants. The problem is constructed on the supposition, that we hold it to be thus essential. Now we only maintain that it is warrantable, and that Sessions must judge of its expediency. There may be cases in which it would not be proper. Suppose the very small number of communicants to be one of these, yet where is the similarity between this case and that of baptism, in which though there be only a parent and child, the administration is as full, as that of the Supper would be if honoured with ten thousand communicants. Let the parent therefore

[p. 198]

treat the ordinance with the same sacred regard, as is shewn to the Supper in all ordinary cases. Mr M. should have remembered, however, that though in the way of his proposed measure’s being carried into effect, such limited communions, as he supposes for the sake of the difficulty, may occur, they are not likely to be met with while the present Presbyterian plan is followed out, nor would they long puzzle any church-court even if they were. We are not tied down by the view we entertain of ‘sacramental fasts and thanksgivings,’ as they are styled.

The SECOND part of our Author’s method was to shew ‘that sacramental fast and thanksgiving days are contrary to the judgment of almost the whole Christian church.’ This was an arduous task. How is it executed? Part of it lies in setting the Confession and Directory to rights, for they seemed rather to grant too much on the opposite side. Most unquestionably he has failed to shew that the days in dispute, are contrary to their doctrine or prescriptions. To prove his point he ought to have shewn,—not that the days had no existence in foreign churches, nor at home till of late*, for this might well be the case, and yet the church entertain no judgment contrary to them;—not that no mention is made of them in the different Confessions he has appealed to, for how was it to be expected, if they were not existent when these Confessions were written?—not that no law has been made by the church about them, for such a law would not have been made even though the church had been favourable to them and engaged in the practice, because it would have been beside the written word, would have seemed to constitute them holidays;—but he ought to have shewn that the principles hitherto maintained by the reformed churches, and published in their Confessions, are contrary to the practice. Some specimens of the little that bears on this point we have already remarked, particularly his attempt to support the proposed new measure, by the doctrine of the Westminster Confession about ‘ordinary parts of worship,’ and to reconcile with this doctrine as explained by him, the words of the Directory, where the administration of the sacrament is allowed to be ‘a special occasion,’ and classed with public fastings and thanksgivings. ‘The ‘term special,’ he observes, ‘is indefinite. When applied to the Lord’s Supper, (as in the Directory,) it merely distinguishes this from other duties†.’ He should have told us in what respects,

_____

* Some time after 1645.

† Lett. p. 87.

[p. 199]

Perhaps that sacrament is so very special as even to warrant a previous fast. The distinction he refers to, cannot surely mean nothing more than the notice of a difference between the Lord’s Supper, and preaching for instance, as one ordinance is distinguished from another by its name or form; were this all, the craving a blessing to our meat might also be denominated special, to distinguish it from sacramental service. Other passages in our own and foreign Confessions to which he has appealed, are granted by himself to have been framed solely against the Romish rites and superstitious appendages to the sacrament, which are utterly unwarranted by Scripture*. Though Mr M. had succeeded in proving that our fast and thanksgiving days are on a level with such rites, he could have brought out the judgment of the church against us, only by inference. It was too much then to set out with a bold assertion, that these days are contrary to the judgment of the Christian church, as if ‘the whole current of public sentiment expressed in solemn enactions, &c. had been diametrically opposite to them.’ He found it expedient to soften down the contrariety first intended to be proved, into ‘it was not the judgment of the church for a long series of ages, such days should be observed.’ By this he has sheltered himself a little; for the fact is, during these ages the church gave no judgment on the subject, nor any that can by implication be made to apply.

The THIRD part of our Author’s method, was ‘to exhibit the great ‘and serious evils with which sacramental fasts and thanksgivings are ‘attended.’ Most of the supposed evils have already fallen under consideration, Sect. V. in the objections against the Presbyterian plan, which are adduced chiefly from Mr M.’s work. Under the four propositions of that Section, the Reviewer conceives he has sufficiently repelled the allegations, ‘that these days are an unwarranted ad-‘dition to the ordinance of the Supper,—that they involve us in self-‘contradiction,—and that they tend to banish the principle and prac-‘tice of scriptural fasting and thanksgiving.’ A little attention to the observations subjoined in the Section, may correct the mistake with which Mr M. sets out in specifying the evils, ‘that the days in ‘question establish a term of communion which has no scriptural ‘sanction.’ Enough has been said also on the ‘pernicious distinc-‘tion’ supposed to be ‘created between the two sacraments,’ by our plan. Whether the observance of days of fasting and thanksgiving be ‘unfriendly to pure and evangelical devotion,’ can scarcely be de-

_____

* Lett. p. 82.

[p. 200]

termined by reasoning. The legal disposition will endeavour to convert every thing, of which it can take advantage to its purpose. And does Mr M. apprehend no danger of an abuse of weekly communicatings by that disposition? These, one would imagine, might furnish it with the plea of even works of supererogation. But due care may be taken to guard Christians from supposing, that our preparatory services mean, ‘we must work the harder in order to our acceptance in ‘the Supper.’ Evangelical ministers are not usually so inattentive to the legal spirit, as to neglect the requisite cautions. If, however, that spirit be so predominant in the present age, as Mr M. seems to insinuate, there is the more need for previous fasting to humble ourselves before God, for serious self-examination, for all that public aid and direction by which, under the blessing of God, Christians may be enabled to set forward “in the strength of the Lord, making mention of his righteousness only,” in an observance more explicitly declarative of faith in Jesus, than attendance on the common dispensation of grace. One of the evils specified, we have shewn to be a special advantage of our plan. It is the communion of the ministry. ‘Our numerous services,’ says Mr M. ‘render the dispensation of the Supper almost impracticable to any minister without the aid of his brethren.’ See on this subject, Sect. V. prop. ii. 3d. At the same time it ought to be recollected, that we are not so tied down to the plan usually followed, as to be bound by it in all cases and circumstances. Where extensive fellowship, or ministerial aid, can seldom be attained, the sacrament may be more frequently dispensed than would otherwise be proper, and even though the public services should be abridged, and on some occasions laid aside.

In his last letter, Mr M. brings forward the ADVANTAGES of his proposed but undeterminate measure,—frequent communion. These we might dismiss with the single remark, that if the measure be wrong, “we must not do evil that good may come.” On surveying however the advantages held out, we are at a loss to conceive how he should appropriate them to his plan. Some of them seem to be equally, if not better attained by the mode we defend. It is certainly better calculated ‘for promoting and confirming brotherly love,’ than the scheme of weekly dispensation. But in general, more of the divine countenance may be expected to a mode which is suited to the design of the ordinance, than to one which either overlooks or counteracts any of its ends. We too might specify advantages, and some that are peculiar to our method. Besides the ‘consolation we have’

[p. 201]

of treating the ordinance with due respect according to its nature and ends, and of endeavouring to secure right observance in a degenerate age, a proper interval is allowed by our plan for the manifestation of regard to vows, or following up and verifying the solemn profession made. The period during which the ordinance may be considered as producing its fruits, and displaying its effect, is not needlessly prolonged. While none will pretend that constant observance would keep alive a spiritual frame, solemn dispensation recurring at intervals may be expected to rouse the languid, to revive attention to the state of the soul, to excite peculiar interest, and lead to beneficial reflections on past conduct. But instead of enlarging on advantages, a theme apt to blind the mind to just views and solid reasoning, the true supports of any mode of religious worship, we conclude by specifying two disadvantages under which the Independent plan obviously labours, and of which ours is happily clear. By weekly communion, the Christian Sabbath is converted into a constant festival. Something is thus added to, or superinduced on the Lord’s day. It is made the stated memorial at once of his death and resurrection. There is a change effected upon it, at least beside the written word. To this the judgment of the reformed churches is manifestly hostile. They allowed that fasting was not improper on Sabbath, and in various instances actually kept the first day of the week as a fast. But a fast, and a festival or feast never can be combined, and to the friends of weekly communion particularly, fasting must appear utterly incapable of combination with the observance of the Supper. In fine, if that ordinance was intended to be kept every first day of the week, it will be difficult to free Paul from granting some kind of allowance to neglect it, or at least supposing it might warrantably be omitted. Were the same language adopted with respect to the Sabbath,—“As often as ye keep the first day of the week,” &c.—who would not instantly conclude that stated observance was not expected?

FINIS.