It is my task to show the place which the Lord's Supper has occupied in the movement. To do this we must understand the movement as a whole before we can have any intelligent idea of the place any particular part has filled. Hence, while others may treat in detail the principles which gave rise to our movement, I must at least give a general view.

      The origin of the movement under the Campbells is to be found in the divided and unhappy condition in the Christian world at the beginning of the last century. Sect was warring against sect; they were biting and devouring one another in the name of religion. Said Thomas Campbell, in the "Declaration and Address": "What awful and distressing effects have these sad divisions produced! What adversions! What reproaches! What backbitings! What evil surmisings! What angry contentions! What enmities! What excommunications and even persecutions! And, indeed, this must continue to be the case in some measure so long as those schisms exist!"

      The philosophy of our movement is to be found in the "Declaration and Address." The voice of God was speaking through these men expressing his disapproval of the unholy warfare between religious bodies which tended to destroy the very spirit of Christianity itself. In getting, therefore, even a general view of this nineteenth-century movement, we must keep in mind that it was a movement looking to the union of all who love the Lord and desire to advance his kingdom.

      Let us keep uppermost in our minds that love was the ruling motive in the lives of these men; it was to remove conditions which tended to produce hatred and strife that they gave their [455] lives. In a very great degree they had love to God, love for man, and for the good of man desired the advancement of the kingdom. Without this love, the movement might have been for union, but not for Christian union. Any advocacy which omits this element, so vital to Christianity, vitiates the effort.

      The plan adopted looking to the realization of this hope for Christian union was a very simple one. From a study of the New Testament they discovered that denominations did not exist in apostolic times. There was no such variety in religious belief as in modern days. There was uniformity in practice. There was a standard of belief which was universally accepted. They also came to believe that, the things which divided the people of God at that time were not contained in the Scriptures; upon things essential, there was practical agreement. The creeds, however, had come to make things which were not essential in the primitive church absolutely binding and essential

F. L. MOFFETT.

to salvation; the opinions of men were as authoritative as a "thus saith the Lord." It was conceived that if the church in its teaching and practice should get back to the simplicity of the primitive church, if it should "speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent," the difficulties in the way of union would be removed, and the people of God soon become one.

      They also discovered that the New Testament condemns divisions, and that our Saviour prayed that all who believe on him might be one, that the world might believe in his Messianic mission.

      The unity and simplicity of the early church appealed to these men of God. Could there be a more feasible plan than to return to this simplicity--and thus restore the unity which at that time existed? In setting forth this simplicity, Alexander Campbell said: "The societies called churches constituted and set in order by these ministers of the New Testament were of such as received and acknowledged Jesus as Lord, Messiah and Saviour of the world, and had put themselves under his guidance. The only bond of union among them was faith in him and submission to his will." Hence, a restoration of primitive conditions in the church was the thing devoutly to be wished.

      The question which arose in the mind of these reformers was, "What place did the Lord's Supper occupy in the church in New Testament times?" "What does the New Testament teach concerning the belief and practice of the churches established under the direction of the authorized agents of Jesus?" The answer which they gave to this question determined the place which the Lord's Supper should have in the movement.

      It was held by these men that there was a divinely instituted order of Christian worship in Christian assemblies in apostolic times. By order of worship, they did not mean the position of the bodies of the worshipers, nor the hour of the day in which certain things were to be done, nor whether one action should always be performed first and another second; but that there were certain authorized acts of worship which were always performed when they met for worship. There was uniformity in their practices; the things essential were observed in their worship whenever they assembled, and what was the practice in one church was the practice in all. These men do not tell us to what extent the Christian worship of the early churches was the result of Spirit-filled men overflowing with love for their risen Lord; they do not come at the matter from that side. They are concerned with the divine program, and the acts which were the practices of the churches must have had the approval of the apostles.

      The Lord's Supper, they said, was one of the acts of worship in Christian assemblies in the first century; the very nature of it demanding that it should be. It represented one of the central facts of the gospel, the death of Christ; and it was beautifully significant that this should occupy the central place in the worship in which his disciples engaged. Luke, in speaking of the church [456] at Jerusalem, says (Acts 2:42): "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and prayers." If prayer was an act of worship, said these men, so is the breaking of bread, for they are classed together.

      This statement concerning the first Christian churches was of great value in determining the place of the Supper in our movement; for they insisted that this church in all of its practices had come into existence under divine direction. It was found, further, that the time determined upon for the assembly of the saints was the first day of the week. From Acts 20:7, it was learned that it was the custom of the disciples of the Lord to meet upon the day which commemorated his resurrection. Justin Martyr says ("Second Apology," p. 96): "On Sunday all Christians in the city and country meet together because this is the day of our Lord's resurrection, and there we read the writings of the prophets and apostles; this being done, the president makes an oration to the assembly to exhort them to imitate and do the things they heard. Then we all join in prayer, and after that we celebrate the Supper." It, however, was insisted by these reformers that so important was the Supper as an act of worship that the reason given for assembling was "to break bread" (Acts 20:7).

      There can be no question but that the Lord's Supper occupied a place of prominence in the early church, and we are sure that we make no mistake in giving it a place of prominence in the church of the twentieth century.

      Let us notice, briefly, how it came to be so prominent in the primitive church. It will help us to understand this significant institution, if we can see that it commemorates one of the sublimest events in the life of our Master. The event itself has many values. Jesus began his work as a teacher. Great companies of people heard him from time to time, but during the latter part of his life he devoted himself very earnestly to his disciples. He was training them for a high and holy mission. It was rather late in his ministry that he announced to them that he must go up to Jerusalem and be crucified and rise the third day. The doctrine of the cross is the heart of the Christian religion. Into a world which was permeated with selfishness came the sacrificial life. That the world might not fail to get the lesson, he died the death of the cross. While he revealed the character of God to us in his suffering, he also interpreted to us the meaning of the true life. He desired "to bring us to God," that we might think his thoughts and live the divine life.

      We need not marvel that the men who were trained in the school of Christ saw that the greatest message the world could receive was "Jesus Christ and him crucified." What a simple gospel was that! But it contained the lesson the world must learn before it can ever come to the highest plane of living. His was the life which inspired the early disciples. It was to be expected that they would cherish his memory. What more fitting than that the institutions of the church should relate to these fundamental things in his life? The suffering of Jesus and his resurrection were remembered every first day of the week.

      In our assemblies we have, like the primitive church, kept these fundamental things of the gospel prominent. This memorial feast has kept before us the suffering of Jesus. We, as a people, have not come to the Lord's Supper with any special theory of the atonement, but the fact has ever been before our minds. The sermon may be poor, or perhaps there may be no sermon at all, but the story of the cross has been told in the emblems spread every Lord's Day. So we forsake not the assembling of ourselves.

      The place which the Supper has occupied in our worship has tended to keep us balanced as a people. It is not an easy matter to push into prominence unimportant matters and have them take precedence over essentials with the Lord's Supper as a weekly observance.

      We preach "Jesus Christ and him crucified" every first day of the week by means of this institution. It has been the centripetal force in our churches.

      The very spirit of this institution makes for personal relationship; it has ever taught us the gospel of a Person. As the sun is the center of our [457] planetary system, so is Jesus the center in spiritual things.

      The Lord's Supper has had a social value in the movement which is worthy of mention. I do not know that we, as a people, have been conscious of this, but its social effectiveness has been great, nevertheless. I do not here speak merely of the fellowship of the communion service; the value of that has been beyond estimate. I do not have in mind the fact that those who love the Lord are brought together each Sunday and may have opportunity to converse upon matters which increase social interest; that has had no small value in the progress of our movement. I speak, rather, of the social motive expressed in the Supper, the sacrifice Jesus made was for others. It was made that others might come to possess the Spirit which made it possible for him to give himself. The lesson taught by the Lord's Supper is that of altruism. The spirit of sacrifice for others is the social spirit.

      The Lord's Supper, as it has been kept by us as a people, has rendered a very valuable testimony on the subject of Christian union. It, in the first place, has not violated the liberty and sacredness of the individual conscience. We have not been called upon to pass upon the opinions and lives of our brethren. The task of self-examination has kept us quite busy. The principle of individual responsibility has been constantly before our minds. The instruction, "Let each one examine himself," has made for liberty and union.

      In the second place, there has been a practical demonstration of the possibility of fellowship and union. That the Lord's table is for the Lord's people has been always accepted by the Disciples of Christ. In awed humility we spread it in his name.

      We come nearer to the heart of Jesus at the Supper than at any other place. We are better able to interpret the meaning and spirit of the prayer of Jesus for oneness, at that sacred spiritual feast, than at any other time in our experience.

      May the day soon come when love will reign supreme in the hearts of all of his people! Then can Christendom sing with the power of reality:

[CCR 455-458]