make these terms so indeterminate as not to denote frequency, and consequently to be no rule at all as than the supper of the Lord The apostle tells us, that their irregularities happened, when they came together in the church, and that the scene of them was the table of the Lord. Whence it follows, that the celebration of the supper was a regular concomitant of their stated meetings for public worship; and these, we know, were held at least every Lord's day. The conclusion results necessarily from the tenor of the apostle's argument, "which evidently supposes, that whenever they assembled together they came to eat the Lord's supper; for otherwise their coming together so as not to eat the Lord's supper, would be no proof that their coming together was for the worse. Weekly communions did not die with the apostles and their cotemporaries. There is a cloud of witnesses to testify that they were kept up by succeeding christians, with great care and tenderness, for above two centuries. It is not necessary to swell these pages with quotations, The fact is indisputable.

"Communion every Lord's day, was universal; and was preserved in the Greek church till the seventh century; and such as neglected three weeks together were excommunicated.

"In this manner did the spirit of ancient piety cherish the memory of the Saviour's love. There was no need of reproof, remonstrance, or intreaty. No trifling excuses for neglect were ever heard from the lips of a christian; for such a neglect had not yet degraded the christian's name. He carried in his own bosom sufficient inducements to obey, without reluctance, the precepts of his Lord. It was his choice, his consolation, his joy. These were days of life and glory; but days of dishonour and death were shortly to succeed; nor was there a more ominous symptom of their approach, than the decline of frequent communicating. For as the power of religion appears in a solicitude to magnify the Lord Jesus continually; so the decay of it is first detected by the encroachments of indifference. It was in the fourth century, that the church began very dis cernibly to forsake her first love."

to time, do not sufficiently consider their force. The term "often" we all know denotes frequency; and " as often" denotes the degree of that frequency; but every comparative supposes the positive. There can be no degree of frequency where frequency itself is not. It might as well be said of the words, "How much she hath glorified herself, so much torment give her,"* conveys no idea of Babylon having glorified herself more than others, but merely of her punishment being proportioned to her pride, be it much or little.

The truth appears to be that the Lord's supper ought to be frequently celebrated; but the exact time of it is a circumstance which does not belong to the ordinance itself.

Similar remarks might be made on female communion, a subject on which a great deal has been written of late years in the baptismal controversy. iWhether there be express precept or precedent for t, or not, is of no consequence: for the distinction of sex is a mere circumstance in no wise affecting the qualifications required, and therefore not belonging to the institution. It is of just as much account as whether a believer be a jew or a greek, a slave or a free man; that is, it is of no account at

"The excellent CALVIN complains that in this day, professors, conceiting they had fully discharged their duty by a single communion, resigned themselves for the rest of the year, to supineness and sloth. "It ought to have been," says he, "far otherwise. Every week, at least, the table of the Lord should have been spread for christian assemblies; and the promises declared, by which, in partaking of it, we might be spiritually fed." Mason's Letters on Frequent Communion, pages 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 42, Edinburgh edition, 1799. * Rev. xviii. 7.

all: "For there is neither jew nor greek, bond nor free, male nor female; but all are one in Christ Jesus. Express precept or precedent might as well be demanded for the parties being tall or low, black or white, sickly or healthy, as for their being male or female.

To accommodate the spirit of new testament practice to the fluctuating manners and inclinations of men is certainly what ought not to be: but neither can it be denied that many of the apostolic practices were suited to the state of things at the time, and would not have been what they were if circumstances had been different. To instance in their proceedings on the seventh and first days of the week-It is well known that in preaching to the Jews and others who attended with them, they generally took the seventh day of the week:* the reason of which doubtless was, its being the day in which they were to be met with at their synagogues. Hence it is that on the first day of the week so little is said of their preaching to unbelievers, and so much of the celebration of christian ordinances, which are represented as the specific object of their coming together. But the same motive that induced the apostles to preach to unbelievers chiefly on the seventh day of the week would, in our circumstances, have induced them to preach to them on the first, that being now the day on which they ordinarily assemble together. In countries where christianity has so far obtained as for the legislature to respect the first day of the week as a day of rest, instead of having now and then an individual come into our * Acts xiii. 42.-xviii. 4.-xvi. 13. +1 Cor. xi. 20.-Acts xx. 7.

assemblies, as the primitive churches had, and as churches raised in heathen countries must still have, we have multitudes who on that day are willing to hear the word. In such circumstances the apostles would have preached both to believers and unbelievers, and administered christian ordinances, all on the same day. To frame our worship in things of this nature after apostolic example, without considering the reasons of their conduct, is to stumble in darkness, instead of walking as children of the light. Yet this is the kind of apostolic practice by which the churches have been teazed and divided, the great work of preaching the gospel to the ungodly neglected, and christianity reduced to litigious trifling.

If the practice of Christ and their apostles be in all cases binding upon christians, whether the reason of the thing be the same or not, why do they not eat the Lord's supper with unleavened bread, and in a reclining posture? And why do they not assemble together merely to celebrate this ordinance, and that on a Lord's day evening? From the accounts in 1 Cor. xi. 20. and Acts xx. 7, two things appear to be evident-First, That the celebration of the Lord's supper was the specific object of the coming together, both of the church at Corinth, and of that of Troas. The former came together (professedly)" to eat the Lord's supper;" the latter are said to have "come together to break bread." Secondly, That it was on the evening of the day. This is manifest not only from its being called the Lord's supper, but from the Corinthians making it their own supper, and from its being followed at Troas by a sermon from Paul which required "lights," and continued till "midnight."

I do not mean to say that the church at either Corinth or Troas had no other worship during the first day of the week than this; but that this was attended to as a distinct object of assembling, and after the other was over.

It may be thought that these were mere accidental circumstances, and therefore not binding upon us. It does not appear to me, however, that we are at liberty to turn the Lord's supper into a breakfast. But if we be, and chuse to do so, let us not pretend to a punctilious imitation of the first churches.

It is well known to be a peculiarity in Sandemanian societies not to determine any question by a majority. They, like the first churches, must be of one mind; and if there be any dissentients who cannot be convinced, they are excluded. Perfect unanimity is certainly desirable, not only in the great principles of the gospel, but in questions of discipline, and even in the choice of officers; but how if this be unattainable? The question is, whether it be more consistent with the spirit and practice of the new testament for the greater part of the church to forbear with the less, or, Diotrephes-like, to cast them out of the church; and this for having, according to the best of their judgments, acted up to the scriptural directions? One of these modes of proceeding must of necessity be pursued; for there is no middle course; and if we loved one another with genuine christian affection we would not be at a loss which to prefer. The new testament speaks of an election of seven deacons, but says nothing on the mode of its being conducted. Now considering the number of members in the church at Jerusalem, unless they were directed in their choice by inspiration, which there