My beloved friend,
It seems a long time since I last addressed you. It has been a very remarkable time to me, as you may judge, when I tell you that for eight weeks I was wholly unable to take a pen or a book in my hand. But, through infinite mercy, though I could not write or read, I could think; and amongst various subjects, one especially has engaged my attention, namely the question of the Lord’s supper, viewed as the index of the state of the church—the state of the hearts of professing Christians with reference to our blessed Lord Jesus Christ.
This has interested me a good deal. I referred to it briefly at the close of my last letter, but, if you will allow me, I shall go a little more fully into it.
I think you will admit that we are perfectly warranted in viewing the history of the Lord’s supper as a very remarkable moral indicator of the true practical condition of the church—of the real state of the hearts of Christians toward our Lord Christ. We should, I think, be justified in concluding that, had the church remained true in heart to Christ, the Lord’s supper—that inexpressibly precious memorial of Himself, in His death—would always have maintained its own divinely-appointed place, exhibited its own divinely appointed elements, and set forth its own grand and important truths. Instituted, as it was, by our blessed Lord, “ the same night in which he was betrayed”—appointed by Him expressly to be the affecting memorial of Himself in His death—to call Him to mind, in that marvelous scone in which He gave up His life for us, we might surely expect that all who really loved Him, all who had been taught to prize His death as the only, the necessary, and the everlasting foundation of all their blessedness—all who truly loved and reverenced His precious commandments—would be most jealous in their affectionate maintenance of all the features, facts, and elements of the Lord’s slipper. He Himself has said, “ If ye love me, keep my commandments.” And again, “ He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me.”
Now, we know that just on the eve of His departure out of this world, when the dark shadows of Gethsemane, and the yet deeper and darker shadows of Calvary, were falling upon His spirit, He expressly appointed the supper as a pledge of His love for His own, and as a memorial of Himself to be observed by His disciples during His absence.
I think you will not object to my bringing under your notice the entire body of scripture evidence on this most interesting question. It is only by having that distinctly before our minds, and in our hearts, that we shall be able to see how soon, bow sadly, and how completely, the church departed from the truth as to the supper of the Lord; and, furthermore, how forcibly that departure proves the deplorable state of the church’s heart as to Christ. If His own institution has been neglected, it is but the expression of the terrible neglect with which He Himself has been treated. If His supper has been marred, mutilated, and flung aside, it only indicates the moral distance to which the church has traveled from Him. His commandment, in this most weighty matter, has not been, is not, kept; and what does this prove but that lie is not loved? ‘We may talk of loving Airs, but if we do not keep his commandments, the talking is a lie and a sham—a heartless, shameless mockery.
But I turn to the testimony of holy scripture. In Matt. 26 we road, “ As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Mink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Verse 26-28.
In Mark 14 we read, ‘‘And as they did eat, Jesus took bread., and blessed, and brake, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them; and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many.” Verse 22-2,1.
The record in Luke is deeply affecting—so tender, so touchingly personal. “ And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you; I will not any ionic eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I soy unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Chapter 22:14-20.
Now, it may be said that in all the above passages we have no warrant for extending the holy obligation and privilege of the Lord’s supper beyond those persons who sat around our blessed Lord on that last solemn occasion. There is not, it may be objected, a single clause admitting others to partake of the precious benefit. Hence, therefore, had we no farther instruction than what is furnished by the three synoptical gospels, the celebration of the Lord’s sapper would not be binding on believers now; or rather—for I intensely dislike the word ‘‘ binding,” when applied to so delightful and precious a privilege—believers now might deem themselves shut out from what every spiritual mind must regard as the most blessed institution in which the Christian can take part.
Furthermore, it may be said—has been said by a large class of professing Christians—that it is a descent from that higher spirituality to which we are called, and a return to ‘‘ weak and beggarly elements,” to insist upon the ordinance of the Lord’s sapper. Hence, as you are aware, the institution is wholly set aside by that body to whom I refer.
Happily for us, my beloved friend, both these objections, if they possessed any weight—which I run sure, to you and me, they do not—no, not the weight of a feather—are completely swept away as we pursue the further history of the Lord’s supper, as unfolded in the Acts and the epistles.
It is interesting to notice that, as in the gospels, we have the supper instituted; so in the Acts we have it celebrated; and in the epistles we have it expounded. And we may assert, with all possible confidence, that the celebration and the exposition do most completely demolish the objection founded on the institution; and not only so, but they wither up the absurdity of classing the precious supper of our Lord under the head of “ beggarly elements,” and prove the fatal error of setting it aside altogether.
For, let me ask, what do we find in the opening of the Acts of the Apostles? Was there any difficulty felt by the many thousands of believers in the city of Jerusalem as to their sweet privilege of sitting down at the table of their Lord? Or, further, let me ask, did the twelve apostles and those happy thousands, filled, taught, and animated by the Holy Ghost, just come down from the risen and glorified Head in the heavens, consider it a descent from a higher spirituality, or a return to “ weak and beggarly elements,” to remember their beloved Lord in the breaking of bread, according to His own most gracious appointment? Let us read the answer, in the glowing words of the inspired historian: “ Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house (κατ οῖκον), did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people.” Acts 2:41-47.
Now, we do not gather from this passage that the breaking of bread was confined exclusively to the Lord’s day, or first day of the week; but we see very distinctly that these early Christians, in the bloom and freshness of their first love, were in the constant habit of breaking bread, in affectionate remembrance of their Lord. They were so filled with the Holy Ghost, that Christ was ever before their hearts, and they delighted to celebrate that precious feast which was, according to His own express word, the affecting memorial of Himself in His death. If anyone had spoken to them about its being a descent from a higher spirituality, or a return to carnal ordinances, thus to break bread in loving memory of their Lord; or if anyone had suggested the idea of having the Lord’s supper once a month, once a quarter, once in six months, or of setting it aside altogether as a beggarly element—we should be marvelously delighted to hear what kind of a reply would emanate from eight thousand loving hearts filled with the Holy Ghost, filled with ardent love to the precious Savior, who, though He had passed through the heavens, and taken His seat at the right hand of the Majesty, in the highest, had nevertheless left it as His last request that His people should remember Him in that special act of breaking bread. I think we can have little difficulty in conceiving what that reply would be. We may rest assured those early Christians, with the twelve apostles at their head, would have scouted all such notions with a holy indignation commensurate with their deep personal affection for their Lord.
But let us pass on, In Acts 20 we find the Apostle Paul and his company at Troas, where he tarried seven days, possibly in order to spend the first day of the Week with the brethren there, in order that they might break bread together. If this were so, it would lead us to the conclusion that the first day of the week, or Lord’s day, was pre-eminently the day set apart for the celebration of the Lord’s supper. One thing is evident, even from this scripture, that the apostles and the early disciples were in the habit of coming together on the first day of the week for the express purpose of breaking bread, not for preaching, though Paul did preach, but specially to remember the Lord in His own appointed way. “ And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days, whore we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when we [thus the four editors render it] came together to break bread,” &c.
Now, here we find the Apostle Paul proving by his presence at the Lord’s supper his appreciation of the holy privilege, and that he at least did not consider it a descent from a higher spirituality, or a return to weak and beggarly elements, to partake of that precious feast. In a word, we learn from our two quotations from the Acts, that, in the days of the church’s first love, when all was in lovely freshness and bloom, in the full power of the holy Ghost, in the plenitude of apostolic gift and grace, the whole church, together with the twelve apostles, and the Apostle Paul himself—the greatest teacher the church has ever had—the special minister of the truth of the church—were in the habit of coming together on the first day of the week, the Lord’s day, the resurrection day, to break bread.
And, my beloved friend, ere I go further, I would ask you if you do not consider this a fact well worthy of the earnest attention of Christians in this our day? I may be somewhat premature in putting this practical question just now, inasmuch as my object is to unfold, first of all, the truth of scripture on the subject of the Lord’s supper, and then to bring that truth to bear upon the present condition of things in the church of God.
But then you will allow me just to press this question. Is it not more than interesting—is it not practically important to notice the fact of the frequent celebration of the Lord’s supper by the apostles and the early church? Always on the first day of the week, often more frequently at the first; no such thing as a monthly, quarterly, or half-yearly celebration of the feast; no hint at such a thing. Indeed, 1 feel persuaded in my own mind—though I would not dogmatize upon it—that no such thing would be thought of,—understood, or tolerated by those beloved early Christians. They loved their Lord too well to admit of their neglecting that most precious and affecting memorial of His love, which he had appointed on the very night in which He was betrayed. And if anyone had hinted at such a thing as setting it aside altogether as a mere carnal ordinance, unsuited to that higher range of spiritual life to which we are called, we can hardly conceive in what terms they would couch their reply.
Ah! no, my friend, we cannot, but see that, just in proportion as people loved Christ, loved His word, were filled with the Holy Ghost, did they delight to flock to His table, to remember Him, and show forth, in happy and holy communion, His death until He come. And if this be so—and who will deny it?—are we not justified in concluding that when professing Christians can go on for weeks and months, and some altogether without ever keeping the blessed feast, their hearts must be cold as to Christ? If I love a friend, a dear absent friend, I shall delight to gaze upon any special memorial which he may have left me. Now, our loving Lord, in appointing the bread and the cup to set forth His body and blood, separated the One from the other, that is His death, as an accomplished fact, made use of these most touching words, “Do this in remembrance of me.” Would not, then, every true lover of Christ delight thus to remember Him? Could such an one be satisfied to go on for weeks or months without ever calling Him to mind in this special way?
And be it carefully noted, that it is only by partaking of the Lord’s supper that we so remember Christ—that we show His death—that we give expression to the great truth of the unity of the body. I question if this is fully seen by Christians generally. It is to be feared that the Lord’s table has lost its true place, lost its true import, lost its solemn interest in the hearts of Christians. The Lord’s table has, in many cases, been flung into the shade of the pulpit—the supper has been displaced by the sermon. And when we come to view all this as the index of the state of our hearts toward Christ, it is calculated to awaken the most solemn reflections. I speak not of it now as a departure from the authority of scripture—which it most surely is—but as the sad and painful evidence of the gross neglect with which our beloved Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is treated by those who profess His name.
If God permit, I shall pursue this subject in my next. Meanwhile allow me to
Subscribe myself, as ever,
Your deeply affectionate yokefellow,
=============================