The skepticism of our restless generation seems determined to unsettle everything in the faith and practice of the church of God. A short time ago it might have been supposed that the divine origin of the Lord's Supper would never be called in question. There were great differences, especially among Protestants, as to the frequency of its observance, and as to the persons who should administer it and participate in it; but no one, I suppose, dreamed of a denial that it was instituted by our Lord. Not till McGiffert's "Apostolic Age" was published, in which this denial was boldly proclaimed, did the general public in this country learn what was going on in skeptical circles on this subject. It now appears that McGiffert obtained his clew from the writings of recent higher critics in Germany, that hot-bed of disbelief, whence the frogs and lizards and snakes of infidelity are constantly swarming. In the August number of the Expositor Mr. G. Wauchope Stewart interprets to English readers some views on this subject recently published in Germany by Harnack and Julicher, both of whom deny that the Lord instituted a feast in memory of himself. It is admitted that Paul says he did, but with these gentlemen Paul is no authority. It is admitted, also, that Luke says he did, according to our present text of Luke's Gospel; but the genuineness of the passage is called in question; and even if Luke did write what we now read on this point, he got his information from Paul, and, of course, it is not reliable. Briefly stated in the words of Julicher, the position is this: "The Lord's Supper is neither a riddle propounded by Jesus to his disciples, nor an important contribution to Christian ethics, nor a provision in any way for the church of the future. Jesus inaugurated nothing, instituted nothing. He had no thought of keeping his memory fresh."

      The process by which these radical assertions are defended is too elaborate, and the argumentation is too flimsy to justify me in copying them; and, for the benefit of the well-balanced and sober-minded, there is no need that I should do so. To state them is to refute them. But there are some indications that even among ourselves it is not amiss to call a halt in regard to innovations in the celebration of this ordinance. It is axiomatic that the Lord, who instituted ordinances for observance in the church, knew the precise manner of their observance which would best secure the spiritual ends had in view; and consequently every loyal soul feels impelled to preserve them precisely in the manner of their first institution, when that can be ascertained. Now, nothing is clearer, especially from Paul's account (1 Cor. 11:23, 26), than that thanks were given for the loaf; it was broken and passed to the partakers, and after that the cup was disposed of in the same way. But, in a few of our churches, this order has been recently changed. Thanks are returned for the loaf and the cup both, and then both are passed at one time to the participants. And what is the purpose of this change? There is none that [342] can see, except to save time. People do not wish to sit very long remembering in silence the dying love of the Lord, especially when the dinner-bells begin to ring. For such motives the form of a divine ordinance is changed; and when the question of propriety is sent to the papers, grave editors are found who excuse it on the plea that the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. One step farther, and an old practice, of which Harnack gives a very full account, may be revived, by which water was substituted for wine in some churches of the third and fourth centuries. In fact, as many fantastic tricks have been played by foolish men respecting the observance of the Lord's Supper as in reference to baptism; and our only safety, in reference to either, is to be found in copying precisely the form instituted by divine authority. Only when we grow wiser than Christ can we be sure that any change of his appointments will produce better spiritual results.

[SEBC 341-343]