My beloved friend, I must still invite you to linger with me over the intensely interesting subject of the Lord's supper, though it may seem to be a digression—and a lengthened one too—from the main line of things proposed in this series of letters. But in reality it is not a digression, inasmuch as it would hardly be possible to write on " the present condition of things in the church of God" without touching upon the important subject of the table and supper of the Lord.
Since penning my last letter to you, I have been dwelling with very much interest on that part of 1 Cor. 11 which bears upon the question of the Lord's supper. It seems to me a very striking and affecting proof of the value and importance attaching to this most precious institution, to find that our Lord Jesus Christ not only instructed the twelve apostles in reference to it, but actually appeared to His servant Paul, in heavenly glory, and gave him a special revelation designed for the church in all ages. This weighty fact furnishes an unanswerable argument against the notion that the Lord's supper partakes of an earthly, or Jewish, character, or that it involves in any way a descent from that higher spirituality to which we as Christians are called. And not only so, but it also speaks in accents of power to all those who, willfully or indolently, absent themselves from the supper of their Lord.
I say " willfully or indolently absent themselves," for, alas! we find the two things operating in the church of God. Some there are who can readily attend a preaching, a lecture, or a soiree, but who rarely present themselves at the table. Others, again, are so indolent as to spiritual things, as not to care much about any meeting.
1 Cor. 11 meets both the one and the other. Let us bend our ears and our hearts to its weighty instruction. " Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together, in assembly [εν εκκλησια—thus the four editors read it,] I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together, therefore, into one place, it is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before his own, supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken."
How very marked the distinction between " the Lord's supper" and " his own supper!" Does it not strike you, dear friend, that in the former we have the grand idea of the whole body; while in the latter we have a miserable selfish individuality? We cannot partake with spiritual intelligence of " the Lord's supper," without having before our hearts the blessed truth of the whole body and every precious member thereof. We cannot, if partaking in communion with the heart and mind of Christ, forget a single one of those so dear to Him, and so intimately associated with Him. In short, when we eat " the Lord's supper," we think of Christ and His beloved members. When we eat " our own supper," we are occupied with self and its interests. Miserable occupation! Well might the inspired apostle exclaim, " What! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the assembly of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not."
Has all this no voice for us? Do we thoroughly apprehend the real secret of the apostle's appeal? Are we to pass over this passage of scripture as a reproof administered to a disorderly company of people recently converted from the gross abominations of heathen idolatry, and not yet instructed in the common refinements of Christianity? I cannot think so. I believe there is a holy lesson in this entire scripture for the professing church of this our day.
True, we do not see such a thing as drunkenness at what is called the Lord's supper, but is there not a " despising of the assembly of God?" Are there not heresies and schisms in our midst? And where are these so flagrantly and painfully apparent as in immediate connection with the table and supper of the fiord? if we are to be taught exclusively by holy scripture, we cannot fail to see that the table of the Lord, with its one loaf, sets before us the great truth of the " one body"- a truth so deeply precious to the heart of Christ. Where is this maintained in Christendom?
Where is it thought of? Where is there anything approaching to an expression of it in the celebration of the Lord's supper?
Let us not, my beloved friend, be afraid to look this weighty question straight in the face. Blessed be God, you and your correspondent have no object of our own to seek after. We have no personal interests to serve, no party cause to further. We have both, for many long years, been outside the camp, in that large and wealthy place from whence we can look around us at all that is going on, and test everything by the unerring word of God. We are outside of all the religious organizations of the clay; but for that very reason we are in a position to embrace, as in the very affections of the heart of Christ, all the members of His blessed body, wherever we may find them.
And may I not add, that just in proportion as we recognize that body, and seek to embrace those members, shall we become painfully conscious of the mode in which both the one and the other are lost sight of in the celebration of what is called the Lord's supper. In fact, the assembly of God is despised, and each one eats his own supper. The communion of the one body is ignored, and the precious feast which is intended to set forth that communion is looked upon as a means of grace to the individual communicant.
Nor is this all. I have further to ask you, how is it that Christians of' various denominations can meet together during the week for the purpose of carrying out some great scheme of religion or philanthropy; but when the Lord's day comes you will find them within their various denominational enclosures, either without the Lord's supper for weeks together, or, if they have it at all, they do not partake of it on the ground of the one body, but as members of a mere human organization—call it what you please. Why do not Christians all meet on the first day of the week to break bread? How is it that millions of professing Christians only have the communion once a month, and many more only once in six months? How is it that many set it aside altogether? How comes it to pass that in one vast section of the professing church the Lord's supper is called " a sacrifice;" in another " a sacrament," and in another " a covenant?" Suppose the Apostle Paul to arrive in London next week, where could he go to break bread? Where could He find the table and supper of His Lord? Where could he celebrate the precious feast according to the order which he had received from our Lord Christ, and imparted to the church? He might go to one place, and see a man, calling himself a priest, arrayed in vestments, and offering up what he calls " an unbloody sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead." He might go to another place, and find a man, more simply arrayed, no doubt, but a man in the capacity of a priest, giving the sacrament to a number of people, without any question as to whether they are converted or not. He might go to other places, and find no table or supper at all; and if he were to inquire what brought them together, he would be told that they assembled, not to break bread, but to hear a sermon.
What would the blessed apostle do? What would he say? Could he sanction such a state of things? Could he countenance such a palpable and gross departure from the teaching of his Lord—such an ignoring of the " one body"—such neglect of the Head?
You know, my dearest A., that I do not write thus to wound the feelings of the very feeblest lamb in all the flock of Christ. As God is my witness, I would lay down my pen forever rather than do so. But I must deal with the facts—the plain, palpable, facts actually displayed in the present condition of the professing church of God. I cannot see any object in writing at all, if I am to cushion the plain truth; and if the statement of truth wounds any one, I cannot help that. I would ask the thoughtful reader to look around him, and see where is the Lord's supper celebrated according to the teaching of holy scripture. Where will he find the Lord's people gathered in assembly on the Lord's day, the first day of the week, to break bread, as set forth in the New Testament? I would ask such an one if he himself is in the habit of meeting for this grand object. There is nothing in the entire range of the church's history of higher importance, nothing of deeper interest to the heart of Christ, nothing more precious, nothing more solemn and significant, nothing more binding upon the hearts and consciences of all Christians, than the Lord's supper. If this be so—and who can deny it?—does it not become us all to look well to it that we are not sanctioning in any way the neglect of the Lord's supper, or any infringement whatever of the divine principle set forth in its celebration according to scripture. I maintain that every true lover of Christ is bound to protest solemnly against any departure from the due order of this most precious institution. Can we suppose for a moment that the blessed Apostle Paul would be found in any place where the supper was set aside, or interfered with in the smallest degree? Would he be satisfied to go on for several Lord's days without the feast at all, or to see it, where professedly celebrated, marred, mutilated, or tampered with, in any way? I do not, and cannot, believe it. I cannot conceive the writer of 1 Cor. 10 and 11 giving the sanction of his presence to aught but God's due order in this matter.
Will anyone say, " It makes no matter how we celebrate the Lord's supper; provided we have it at all, and are sincere in our observance of IL" I ask, are the Lord's table and the Lord's supper to be observed according to the Lord's word, or according to our own notions? Is it true that the Lord's supper, as presented in His word, is designed to set forth the unity of His body, to show out His death, and to recall Him to remembrance in the way of His own special appointment? Nay, more, is it true that the Lord's sapper is the only way in which the church can truly give expression to these grand realities? I confess I do not see how this can be called in question, Well, then, can we with impunity neglect or tamper with the holy institution? Why, my beloved friend, when it was merely a question of a woman having her head covered or uncovered, the inspired apostle is so peremptory on the point, that he closes all discussion by the authoritative and withering statement, " If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God!" What would he say to any interference with the time or mode of celebrating the holy sapper of the Lord?
But I must draw this letter to a close, and shall do so by quoting the remainder of the Spirit's teaching on the great subject which has been engaging our attention. From it we shall learn the lofty source from whence the inspired apostle derived his knowledge of the truth respecting the supper of His Lord; and we shall also be able to form a judgment as to the weight, importance, interest, significance, and value attaching to that institution in the mind of God.
" For I have received of the Lord [not merely from the twelve] that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayal [how sweetly touching! how deeply affecting!] took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take eat, this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do spew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily [in an unworthy manner], shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body [that is, His own literal body given, and bruised for us on the cross]. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. [They were judged in their own persons, and visited with bodily sickness and death, because of their neglect of the Lord's supper.] For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world." 1 Cor. 11:23-3223For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. 27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:23‑32).
Now, my much-loved friend, is it asking too much of any Christian, after presenting such a body of scripture evidence on the subject of the Lord's supper, if we entreat him to judge, in the light of such evidence, the present condition of things in the church of God, in reference to the celebration of the Lord's supper? I think I anticipate your reply. For my own part, as I compare scripture with facts around me, I can only exclaim, what has the professing church done with the Lord's table? What has she done with the Lord's word? What has she done with the Lord's Christ?
Ever most affectionately yours,
***