"prefbyteries to do what they can to get it fo "ordered, that the facrament of the Lord's Supper may be administered in their bounds, thro' "the feveral months of the year."

The general affembly 1712, "confidering that "the affemblies of this national church have, by "feveral acts, appointed the frequent celebra❝tion of the Lord's Supper in all the congrega❝tions of this church, and judging that the due. "obfervation of these acts will greatly tend to the "glory of God, and edification of fouls; there"fore did enjoin all prefbyteries to inquire if the faid acts be duly obferved by all the brethren."

By the fixth act of the affembly 1724, act 6th, affembly 1711, is revived and renewed; prefbyteries are appointed to do all they can to have the Lord's Supper more frequently administered in their bounds, throughout the feveral months of the year; and injoined to take care, that on the Lord's Day on which the facrament is to be administered in any congregation, the neighbouring congregations be fupplied with fermons. Prefbyteries are appointed to call their respective brethren in their bounds to an account as to the observance of this: And fynods to call their respective prefbyteries to an account as to what is injoined them.

The prefbytery of Edinburgh, by an act made the 27th of April 1720, did recommend the facrament to be celebrated in their respective churches, at least the months after mentioned, viz. January in Canongate, February in NorthLeith, March in all the churches of Edinburgh, April in Corstorphin, May in South-Leith and Kirk-Newton, June in Weft-Kirk and Curry, July in Collington and Ratho, and again in Ca

nongate,

nongate, Auguft in Libberton and Cramond, September again in Weft-Kirk, October in Duddinfton, and again in all the churches of Edinburgh, and in November again in South-Leith and that any parifh which cannot conveniently keep their diets above-mentioned, do it in the -month of December that year. And that communicants might have more time for private preparation, and that as few minifters as poffible might be taken from their own parifh work, and fo their congregations left without fermon, whereby people, that do not communicate, come and incommode communicants, and profane the Lord's Day by vaguing, idle difcourfe, and otherwise : They alfo agreed, that there be only two fermons on the Faft-day, one on Saturday, two on the Lord's Day, and one on Monday; that neighbouring minifters fhould provide their churches with fermon, and exhort fuch as were not to communicate to keep their own parish churches; and gave it as their opinion, that there fhould be no Church-yard fermons on fuch occafions (x). Thefe alterations, inconfiderable as they were, occafioned a terrible outcry: And many elders and private Chriftians left their own minifters. But, in a short time, this heat fubfided, and the beft and greatest part of them faw that a feparation on such grounds would be criminal. This was the more remarkable, as the number of fermons was greatly leffened, without increasing in any reasonable proportion the number of com

(x) See Dan an Adder in the Path; or, Confiderations on the new Scheme of Communions in the Presbytery of Edinburgh, p. 6. And Dan in Beersheba; or, the Idolatry of Communion Sermons, p. 11,

munions,

munions, which it is no wonder fome fhould be, uncharitable enough to ascribe to the laziness of minifters. Whereas the fynod of Glasgow's overture is not liable to fuch a misrepresentation, the number of communions in every congregation being increased, and at the fame time as many fermons on week days, in the course of a year, as there are in our present way.

I fhall only afk my reader, are our times better than the reformation and covenanting periods, when our church approached much nearer to the primitive fimplicity in difpenfing the Supper of the Lord? Has our church gained any thing, has practical religion been increased by the change of the old for our prefent way? Does it not deserve inquiry, if our neglect of frequently communicating, be not one caufe, why the love of many has waxed cold?

I

SECTION III.

Now proceed to confider fome of the principal objections against frequent communicating. And,

I. It is alledged, that "the primitive Chriftians were fo eminent in religion, and so well "prepared for the facrament, that weekly com"munions might, in their time, be highly ex"pedient; but that in our degenerate times, the

cafe is altered, and our frequently partaking, "confidering our low attainments in grace, "would be highly dangerous."

But, if our attainments are fo low, is there not a caufe? And what caufe more probable, than our feldom attendance on that ordinance, which

our

our Lord intended as the principal means of keeping up a lively fenfe of his dying love? Befides, as Calvin well obferves (a), the weaker our graces are, the greater is our need of frequent attendance on this ordinance, to strengthen and increase them. It ought alfo to be remembered, that even the primitive church had spots in their feafts of charity. St. Paul does not defcribe a christian deportment in the church meetings of the Corinthians: but he no where advises them to communicate feldomer, but only enjoins them to do it in a more becoming manner.

§ 2. II. The Jewish pallover was celebrated only once a year; therefore, fay fome, the Lord's Supper, which comes in its place, fhould be difpenfed no oftener. To this I reply, in the words of Mr. Charnock (b), the paffover indeed was annual. God fixed it to that time; but they had their daily facrifices in the temple, which were types of Chrift, and remembrancers to them of what was in time to be exhibited. We have no ordinance fettled by Chrift in commemoration of his death but this only.

$3. III. But the argument on which most ftrefs is laid, is, that frequency will leffen the folemnity of the ordinance, and bring it into contempt. They argue thus, "affections are "wound up to a higher pitch by the novelty and sc rarity of any thing, whereas the common"nefs of a thing, however excellent it be,

(a) Quo enim majore imbecillitate premimur, eo majus ac frequentius in eo exerceri debemus, quod tum ad confirmandam fidem noftram, tum etiam ad fanctitatem vitae promovendam, nobis ufui effe & poteft & debet. Calvin de coena Domini, in Tract. Theol. Genev. 1617. fol. p. (b) Charnock's works, vol. II. p. 756.

5.

"caufes

66

66

"caufes them to flag and cool. Scarcity advan"ceth, plenty abateth, the value of every thing. "Thofe acts of worship, which are frequently, are alfo flightly performed and fince we cannot preferve both, we had better part with frequency than reverence. For we shall more "honour our Lord, by partaking of his fup- per more reverently, tho' lefs frequently, "than more frequently with less reverence. Ac"cordingly, how poor are the fruits of this or"dinance in the church of England, where it "is fo frequently dispensed?" To this I reply,

(1.) If frequent communicating is a duty, then danger of doing it with lefs advantage does not leffen our obligations to that duty. For whatever danger there is, God forefaw it, but yet did not fee meet to guard against it, by enjoining us to communicate feldom. Shall we then pretend to be wiser than God? Have we found out better means for fecuring the honour of his inftitutions, than the means prescribed and practifed by thofe who were under the infallible guidance of his fpirit? Have not attempts of this kind proved the fource of the worst corruptions in popery? Reafon has no power to difpenfe with, or to derogate from the pofitive laws of God, on pretence of doing them a fervice. It is blafphemous prefumption, tho' it may put on a cloak of humility, to judge that a fufficient reafon to hinder thee from frequent communicating, which our Lord did not judge a fufficient reafon to hinder him from commanding it. If thou thus judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. Is there in the whole Bible, any exprefs

or