⟨It⟩ appears that the Reformers were generally ⟨of⟩ ⟨the⟩ same mind on this subject, although from the ⟨rude⟩ materials on which they had to work, they were obliged to temporize. Calvin says, expressly that “the Lord’s table ought to be spread for his ⟨children⟩ every Lord’s day” The Genevan Reformers introduced it monthly into their church, and it ⟨appears⟩ that the Scotch Reformers, as was to be expected, followed their example; for the “Book of common Order,” supposes that the Lord’s Supper was administered once a month. But with the present preaching appendages, it is impossible to make any thing like an approach toward the primitive practice. Thus a set of unscriptural holy-days— the mere inventions of men, have put the Lord’s Supper out of its own place among gospel institutions— have driven it into a corner. Nor let it ⟨be⟩ remembered, is the view of this subject maintained in this Inquiry, peculiar to those who act upon it. Presbyterians, both in and out of the establishments have lately advocated the cause of weekly communion, by arguments that cannot be refuted. The writings of Randal and Erskine in the Establishment, of Douglas and Hutcheson among the Relief, and of Brown and Mason among the Seceders, are well known, and well worthy of ⟨the⟩ attention of all who would inquire into this ⟨subject.⟩ I am glad to know, that a respectable Presbyterian congregation in Paisley, have been for years in ⟨the⟩ habit of eating the Lord’s Supper monthly. ⟨I⟩ trust, they are aware, that “they have not ⟨yet⟩ attained, neither are already perfect”— that ⟨they⟩ have no more Bible authority for monthly, ⟨than⟩ they have for yearly communion; except that ⟨the⟩ one is nearer the Divine rule than the other.
2. The system of preaching days has put ⟨the⟩ Lord’s Supper out of its place, in point of solemnity and importance.
