In 1849, W. K. P. writes of

      The Lord's Supper recalls the sublimest spectacle of divine love--the brightest display of divine justice and the most touching exhibition of disinterested suffering ever presented to angels or men. It points us to "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." It uncovers to us the deep foundation of our hope,--shows how God may be just in justifying the unrighteous; plants the tree of life upon the [220] ruin of the grave and opens the doors of mercy to an alienated and condemned world. Without the shedding of blood there were no remission of sins, and without the remission of sins, none could hope to see God. It is the emblem of a mighty deliverance,--the passover which looks not to protection from the shadowy wing of Egypt's scourge, but to a more blessed aid, which points us to the blood of sprinkling that cleanses from all guilt, and marks us for mercy, not for a night, but forever. It is the perpetual embodiment of the mercy of God, for in it is revealed to us the power of God unto salvation,--even the gospel itself. As oft as we partake of it, we do show forth the death of our divine Saviour till he come, and what is this but our hope of life everlasting!

      It is a custom of many slightly to regard this commemorative feast and for causes wholly inadequate to refuse its life-giving emblems. Whilst the church is seated around the table of the Lord, and are engaged in the solemn commemoration of their great deliverance, how often does it happen that some of the professed followers of Christ are engaged at home in the frivolities of idle conversation or strolling, in vacant indifference, over the fields, without a thought of the God that made them or the blood that bought them. Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples of old came together to break bread, they are engaged in worshipless idleness, and when the cup and the bread, which are the communion of the blood and body of Christ, are passing around to awaken in the heart of the true disciple memories grateful and sweet, of that divine friend who gave his own life a ransom for us, we look in vain for their faces. The things of life have no charms for them, and the spectacle of the Saviour's death touches no chord of sympathy in their bosom, enkindles no flame of love upon the unsanctified altars of their hearts.

      It is said that the primitive Christians soon lost confidence in the professor who could habitually abstain from the table of the Lord, and hence it became the frequent occasion of discipline and excommunication. According to the earlier writers, all,--in the language of St. Ambrose, omnes Christiani, omni dominica, debent offere,--"all Christians ought, on every Lord's day, to partake of the Lord's supper,"--and on what ground, but a strange misapprehension of the nature and obligation of this institution, the want of all spiritual appreciation of its import, or the absence of a feeling and a desire to remember Christ, can any one refuse or neglect it! The true and most devout Christians in all ages have regarded it as one of the most precious privileges of their holy communion, and from the times of the Saviour till now we have good reason to believe that its observance has never been suspended. The unbroken continuity of no ceremony in the [221] church stands on clearer evidence than does this. The writings of Paul down to the 60th year of the Christian era afford the most explicit instructions as to its nature and design--and from the allusions of Pagan writers as far back as the year 100, we learn that the primitive Christians still celebrated the death of Christ. The Apostle John lived thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and died about the time the celebrated epistle of Pliny to the Emperor Trajan was written. In this epistle allusion is made to the observance of the Lard's supper as then a regular part of the Christian worship, and from this time down through all succeeding centuries, we have ample evidence of its uninterrupted observance. It is a historical fact, therefore, that down to the death of Paul and down to the death of John, this supper was among the ordinances of the Lord's house, and that, under apostolic sanction and authority. No Apostle ever gave the least intimation that it was to cease till the time the Lord shall come; and history shows that, long as an Apostle lived to counsel the church, she cherished and kept alive this most sublime and significant of all her social commemorative rites.

      No one can pretend to deny that Paul teaches the fitness of observing the supper till the time the Lord shall come; but it is by some contended that the coming of the Lord, referred to by him, took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, and that since that time, therefore, Christians are under no obligation to show forth his death farther;--that the observance of the supper should have ceased with the destruction of Jerusalem. Now this event took place in the year 70, yet we find that for thirty years after this, the supper continued to be celebrated by the primitive Christians, and that too, under the observation of the beloved Apostle John, and of course with his sanction and approbation. If John knew the mind of the Spirit, certainly this fact must be regarded as conclusive, and it leaves no room for cavil as to the Christian's duty now.

      But let us look at this objection in another point of view. What is the meaning of the ceremony? Is it not the Christian's passover? for even our passover, Christ, is sacrificed for us. (I. Cor. v. 7.) The Jewish passover was both commemorative and typical. It called up to the grateful recollection of the Jews, the mighty deliverance from Egyptian bondage which had been wrought for them through the agency of the angel of death, and pointed to the Lamb of God that would deliver us even from the bondage of the grave. The emblematic continued till the true Paschal Lamb appeared, and that was Christ. Before and in anticipation of the breaking of his body and the spilling of his blood, he gave his disciples a new institution, presented in appropriate symbols, and commanded it to be observed in [222] remembrance of him. It is then a commemorative institution, designed to recall to the Christian's mind the sufferings of their Great Deliverer and to awaken in their bosoms grateful recollections of him who, for their sakes, spared not his own life. It is a memento of an absent friend, reminding us of the great love wherewith he loved us, by symbolizing before our eyes the sublime spectacle of the sufferings he bore for us, when he cried mightily in the agonies of the cross. Paul, in commenting upon this institution, after quoting the language of the Saviour, (I. Cor. xi. 24, 25,) adds, "Wherefore, as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death till he come." Now suppose we grant that in some sense the Lord did come at the destruction of Jerusalem, can it be concluded that this coming was such an one, as to do away the design of the Lord's supper? If this supper was designed, as the Saviour declared, to make us remember him, was there anything in the destruction of Jerusalem, that made it unnecessary thereafter to remember Christ in the sufferings of his death? If it was intended to make us REMEMBER him, was there any thing in the destruction of Jerusalem that supplied its place and answered as a better memento of Christ's death? Suppose Christ did come, in the sense of an overwhelming judgment, at the overthrow of that ancient Temple and City of God, was there any thing in that, to make us Christians of the 19th century remember him in his life-giving death? How many signal judgments of God intervened between the institution of the passover and the sacrifice of the Lamb of God; yet who ever thought these a reason for suspending the observance of that great feast? Surely the memento of in absent friend is to be cherished so long as he is separated from us, and only when we are restored again to his personal society, may we throw away the cherished symbols of his love. We are as far from the visible, sensible presence of Christ now, as were the saints in the days of Paul, before the overthrow of the last glory of the ancient Jews; and we as much need now, as they did then, the sacred symbols of his mighty love. Yes, we must still remember him who died for us, if we would be saved, and, still openly publish to the world his death till he come in the glory of the Father to take us again to his bosom, till he return from that place whither he has gone to prepare mansions for us, and come again, not in a destructive judgment simply, but in visible personal glory, to receive us unto himself, that where he is, there we may be also. (John xiv. 3.) It is the practice of some disciples to make their little differings and heartburnings ground of abstinence from the memorials of the Saviour's death. Shall we call this a pious superstition? Many good persons labor under the delusion, and we would not stigmatize it by a harsher name. But where is the reason [223] of it! Not, surely, in the nature or design of the institution, but in the mistakes of our heads. When the Corinthians were disputing about the relative merits of some of their teachers, and were actually at variance because of their adherence to men, the Apostle Paul asked, IS CHRIST DIVIDED? AS PAUL CRUCIFIED FOR YOU? And so when we see a Christian refuse to eat the supper of the Lord because his fellow-Christian has not walked to please him, we feel inclined to ask, DID YOUR ERRING BROTHER DIE FOR YOU? IS IT HIS LOVE YOU CELEBRATE? DO YOU EAT THE LOAF AND DRINK THE WINE TO HONOR HIM? Then why, if your own heart be right, should you abstain from the table which the Lord and not your fellow-man has spread and refuse to commemorate the death of Christ, because your Christian brother has treated you unworthily? Is not this a wide practical error? It is true that this supper is or should be the communion of the body and blood of Christ; but what does the Apostle mean by this expression? Does he intend to say any thing more than that those who partake of it are joint and mutual participants of the blessings flowing from the blood and body of Christ,? The context shows that this is the scope and design of the expression, and not that it was intended to justify a Christian in withdrawing from the Lord's table simply because an erring fellow mortal had injured or offended him. The joint participation of which Paul speaks, is in the blessings of Christ's sacrifice, and to refuse to signify our participation in and dependence upon these because another, who, we think, is not deserving, would claim the same privilege, is, in semblance, to refuse the offer of Heaven because some hypocrites hold themselves forth as candidates for its honors.

      The exhortation of Paul is, Let him that eateth examine, not his neighbor, but himself, and take care, not that unworthy brethren may not be there, but that in his own heart there lurk not the leaven of malice or wickedness and an undiscerning forgetfulness of the body and blood of Christ. It is to lift the soul above its passions, its enmities, and its prejudices, and fixing it in grateful and rapt contemplation upon the cross, to bury in that fountain which poured from the pierced side of the Lamb, every thought of injury or revenge, and to breathe only in the love of God. Ah! if the love of Christ for us had been like our love for him and for one another, haw could he have given himself to die for us, while we were yet enemies to him? Compared with the fervor of his devotion to our cause, how cold is our warmest thought, and before the sufferings of Calvary, how trifling the costliest sacrifice we can possibly make! Yet for the sake of showing our dissatisfaction towards an offending brother, we can despise the memorials of the Saviour's death and [224] throw contempt upon the affectionate injunction of our suffering friend, bidding us, THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.

      Beloved in Christ, let us awake to the love of God. Let us not forsake the solemn feast of his house, but, anxious by all means to manifest our gratitude for our deliverance, let us be ever ready openly is publish his death to the world, and to declare our reliance upon his sacrifice, for pardon and life. It is worse than ingratitude to treat lightly, this last and only token of his love, and to proclaim by our neglect, our contempt for those sufferings which he endured for us, and under the weight of which, he bowed, even to death!

[W. K. PENDLETON.]      

Source:

W. K. Pendleton. "The Lord's Supper--Its Use and Abuse." The Millennial Harbinger 20 (September 1849): 518-523.

[MHA2 720-725]