Page:Brief inquiry into the origin and tendency of sacramental preaching-days (1).pdf/8

Rh void; and wherever dispersed according to his own institution, his blessing may be expected with it. Yet notwithstanding these concessions, I maintain, with Dr. Mason, that this system is “attended with great and serious evils.” These evils, may perhaps be comprehended under two heads— putting the Lord’s Supper out of its proper place, and contributing to its profanation.

1. The system of preaching-days has put the Lord’s Supper out of its proper place among gospel institutions. That the Lord's Supper made a part of the public worship of the primitive churches, every first day of the week, admits not of rational doubt. What else would any man unfettered by system, infer from the following passages, Acts ii. 42. “They continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayers.” Here, the breaking of bread is mentioned, not as an extraordinary occurrence, but as a part of the ordinary duties of stated public worship. Acts xx. 7 “On the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.” Here, it is evident, that one special design of their coming together, on the first day of the week, was to break bread. 1 Cor. xi. 20. “When ye come together, therefore, unto one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.” This shews that the avowed design of their coming together was to eat the Lord’s for Supper; but that their manner of doing it was inconsistent with this design. These passages, mutually illustrate and confirm one another; and it would be a violent wresting of them, to compel them to speak any other language.

Nor was this the practice of the apostolic churches merely, but continued for ages the invariable practice