The Lord's Supper a Declaratory Rite
1 Cor. xi. 26
Ye do show th.e Lord’s death till He come.” 1 CoK. xi. 26.
THESE words occur in the course of the oldest narrative of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. The Apostle declares that he received his information directly from Jesus Christ. So that we have here an independent witness to the facts. The testimony carries us back beyond the date of the earliest of our existing gospels, and brings us within five-and-twenty years of the Crucitixion. By that early period, then, the Lord’s Supper was universally observed; and not only so, but it had been in existence long enough to have been corrupted. The corruptions are instructive, as is also the apostolic method of dealing with them.
The abuses to which the Apostle refers, and which are his sole reason for mentioning the Lord’s Supper at all, are mainly two, both of which cast great light on the earliest form of the ordinance. Some Corinthians were accustomed to make it an occasion for gluttony and intoxication, and some vrere accustomed to eat, as the Apostle says, “their own supper,” SO breaking the unity which the rite was in part intended to express.
How would it have been possible for abuses of that sort to arise, unless the first form of the observance of the Lord’s Supper had been associated with a common meab and the domestic aspect been prominent in it? And how would individual hurry in partaking each one of his own supper have been possible, if there had been present an officiating priest to do his magic ere the rite could be observed? It is a strange picture, to our eyes, which necessarily arises from the consideration of these two abuses. And it is a long road from the upper room where the Corinthian Church met to the “tremendous sacrifice of the Mass.”
The Apostle’s way of dealing with the abuses is quite as remarkable as they are, and quite as ilhiminative, as I think, as to the true sio-nificance and sacredness of this ordinance. I simply take the words before us as they lie, noting the three points which he emphasizes in order to enforce his doctrine of the sanctity of the Lord’s Supper. It is a proclamation. It is a proclamation of the death of Christ. It is a proclamation perpetually “till He come.” That is all, and he thinks it is enough.
Now, then, let us deal with these three things.
I. — First, then, this great thought that the essential characteristic of this ordinance is that it is a declaration.
What it declares we shall have to speak about presently. It is its nature, not its theme, that I first note. The worl, rendered “show forth” means fully to proclaim aloud by word of mouth, and it is generally employed in reference to the preaching of the Gospel, or of the Word of God. Plainly, then, the Apostle wishes to parallel the two things, the oral declaration of the Gospel, and the symbolical declaration of the same verities, as standing on precisely the same ground, and differing only in regard of the method which is adopted for their proclamation, and the senses to which they are directed. A parable is a spoken symbol; a symbol is an acted parable. The one and the other lay hold upon the Material, and bend it, flexible as it is, to become the illustration and partial embodiment of the Spiritual. Such is, as the Apostle says, the nature of this rite. It stands on the same level as any other method of declaring the truths which it declares, and its only distinction lies in the peculiarity of the method adopted, which is a symbolical presentation, to the eye, of the facts which are given to the ear in what we ordinarily call the preaching of the Gospel.
Now, it is clear that I am not forcing too much meaning into a single expression, because, throughout this whole context, there is not a single word that goes beyond such a conception of the Lord’s Supper. It is a memorial, and, as the Apostle says in my text, the reason why it is a memorial is because it is a proclamation. Or, to put it into other words, by the rite we declare to ourselves and to others the Christian facts, and the declaration helps us to bring them to mind, and to feed upon Him whom they reveal to us.
Nothing beyond that lies in this context. And the omission of any reference to anything unique, mystical — still more, supernatural — in the rite, is all the more remarkable if jou remember the purpose that induced the Apostle to speak about it at all — viz., to rebuke irreverence, and to elevate the notions of the Corinthian Christians as to the sanctity of the ordinance. If he had shared the ideas of the people who call themselves his “successors,” how could he have refrained from using that conclusive argument, when his purpose was to enforce the sacredness of the rite? The only reason why he did not use it was because he never dreamt of it, nor had it ever entered into the horizon of the Christian consciousness of his day. The sacredness lies in the proclamation which it makes, and that is sacredness enough.
But then, brethren, as every king’s crovvu and every wedding ring bear witness, all symbols ai-e apt to run to seed, and there gathers round them, by swift accretion, almost necessarily, at all events generally, something that is far more than symbolical, even a superstitious use of them. Therefore our Lord, recognizing the needs of sense, has made concession to sense, in the two ordinances of His Church; and recoonisino: the dangers of symbol, has rigidly limited the symbols to the two appointed by Himself. But men have not lived at that lofty elevation. And paganism,” when it came into the Church, grasped at the symbols, and translated them as it had translated those belonging to the system of idolatrous worship Vvhich in name was rejected and in spirit too often retained. All that is vulgar, and all that is sensuous, and all that is weak in humanity, cling to the outward rite, and transform it into a power. And so we find that the baleful shadow of priestcraft is creeping over England again to-day, and that the centre of gravity of Christianity is being shifted from personal union by faith with Jesus Christ to participation in an outward form which brinofs the benefits of union with Him.
And I for my part believe, though it may sound in these days of a3sthetic worship and growing regard for ceremonial, extremely and archaically Puritan and narrow — I believe that there is no logical standing ground between these two conceptions of the Lord’s Supper, “Ye do show the Lord’s death,” and on the other hand the extreme Roman Catholic view, to which so many people to-day seem to be so rapidly drifting. Nonconformists used to understand the limits of ritual and the place of ordinances. Some of us, I am afraid, are beginning to falter in our repetition of the ancient witness wdiich our fathers have borne.
IL — Notice hero the theme of the proclamation.
“Ye do show the Lord’s death.” Now I need not remind you, I suppose, that there is perhaps no better evidence of an historical fact than the almost contemporaneous origin, and continuous duration, of some commemorative symbolical act, as the history of all nations may tell us. And it should be taken fairty into account, in estimating the historical evidence for the veracity of the Gospel narratives, that almost simultaneously with the events which they profess to record there sprang up, and there has continued to exist ever since, this rite. The book of the Acts of the Apostles shows us that immediately after Pentecost the disciples “continued steadfastly in the breaking of bread “; and that at a later period they were in the habit of assembhng on the first day of the week for the same purpose. So I claim this longpractised rite, which can be traced up almost to the open grave of the Master, as a very strong attestation of the historical veracity of the Gospel narratives. Thus, in the lowest sense, Ave do proclaim the Lord’s death.
But the force of the words goes far beyond that. Note, then, and give to it due importance in your conception of what the Gospel truth and Christ’s teachings are, the fact that He Himself lihose out from all His history His death as the thing which day by day loving hearts were to remember, and hungry souls were to feed on. Why was that? Why was it that He passed by all the rest and fixed on that? It seems to me that the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper ought to exercise the influence of a barrier against all attempts to minimize or to diminish the significance and the importance of Christ’s death. What do churches which have ceased to proclaim the full doctrine that the death of Christ is the life of the world do with that rite? They neglect it or let it drop into desuetude or explain it away by all sorts of obviously insufficient explanations. But there it stands. Xot His words of gentleness; not His deeds of power; not His teachings of wisdom and of truth; not His revelation of God by the beauty of a perfected humanity and the patience of inexhaustible tenderness, are what He desires to be remembered by; but that death upon the Cross. Surely, surely, that indicates a unique influence and power as residing there.
And that same conviction is enforced if we remember that the showing of the Lord’s death, which is accomplished in this rite, shows it under very distinct conditions, explanatory of its meaning and power. For the duplication’oTthe memorials into the bread and the wine taken separately indicates a death by violence; and the language of the institution points us to deep mysteries — the body “broken” or given “for you” — and the “blood shed for the remission of sins.” The same idea is conveyed by the associations which our Lord was careful to establish between this feast of the Christian Church and the Passover feast of the Jewish, He swept aside he sacrifice that was made for the redemption of Israel from the captivity of Egypt, and He said “Forget the shadow and remember the substance, forget the sacrifice that was made of the Lamb, unbroken in bone, and remember the other of Him wdiose body was given for you, the Lamb of God the Passover for the sins of the world.”
The same declaration of redeeming power, as lyings in the death of Christ, is enforced by the other reference, which our Lord Himself has bid us see, to the new covenant in His blood, the covenant of wdiich the articles are remission of sins, the mutual possession of God by the redeemed soul and of that soul by God, the direct knowledge of Him, and the continual inscribing of His law upon the heart.
And so, brethren, we have not to look back to that death as simply the touching martyrdom of the purest soul that ever lived. AVe have not to look back to Christ’s work as having been done as they who reject His propitiatory death are forced to regard it.
9i THE LOBUS SUPPER A DECLARATORY RITE.
chiefly in His life of gentleness, in His words of teaching, in His deeds of power and of pity; but we have to recognise this unique fact, that His death is the centre of His work, and in a peculiar sense the foundation of salvation for us all. “Ye do show the Lord’s death.”
And “ye do show,” too, the conditions of our partaking of it — viz., that we should feed upon Him; the heart on His love, the will on His commandments, the understanding on His word, and the whole sinful man upon His atoning death. “He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life.”
III. — Lastly, note the perpetual duration and prophetic aspect of the proclamation.
“Ye do show the Lord’s death till He come.” Now I suppose I do need to dwell upon the thought that that distinctly implies that all through the ages of the Church the Apostle contemplated the continuance of this rite of witnessing, but I rather desire to suggest to you how, in the very rite itself, there can be distinguished, not only a commemorative aspect or a backward look, but a prophetic aspect, and a symbol of that which is to come.
‘•’ Till He come.” All symbolical worshijD carries in itself the witness of its own cessation, and points onward to the time when it shall not be needed. It is, as I said, a concession to sense; it is a confession of weakness. It is, if not inconsistent with, at least in some measure incongruous with, the highest genius o the Christian dispensation. That is no reason for precipitate dispensing with external form. No man can judge another in regard of that matter. There is need for a great deal more charity, both on the side of those who inchne to the Quaker freedom from all ritual, and of those who incline, by natural disposition, to the other side, than is usually practised. It is no proof of spiritual maturity to try to do without the help of external rites. It is no proof of spiritual immaturity to cleave to them, if only it be distinctly understood that the whole value of them lies, not in what they are, but in what tlicy signify. But still the existence of symbolical worship is a prophecy of its own cessation. It digs its own grave, as it were; and just because here we need the bread and wine to help us to remember the death, the taking of these, in compliance with that temporary necessity, itself carries our thoughts, or ought to carry them, onward to the time when, Christ Himself being present with His Church, and we sitting at His table in His kingdom, the symbols shall be no more needed. “I saw no temple therein.” “Ye do show... till He come.”
Again, the memory of His death is fitted, and intended, to quicken the hopes of His return. For the two belong to one another, and are bolted together, if I might so say, like two stars revolving round a common centre. He being what He is, the Cross and the open sepulchre cannot be the last that the world is to see of Him. The Death demands the Throne, and the Throne certifies the Return. So the memory of the past is brightened into hopes for the future; and the radiance behind us flings the reflection forward on to the darkness before, and illumines that with a sister lustre. He has come and died, therefore He will come and reici’n.
And then, still further, hope is inextricably intertwined with memory; because, in this domestic rite, we see the symbol that the Master Himself has given us of the calm felicities of that life beyond. He Himself said, on that last night when He sat at the table, “I appoint unto you a Kingdom that ye may sit at My table in My Kingdom”; feeding on Christ then in reality as we now do in symbol and imperfectly by faith; companioned by Christ according to His gracious promise, “I will sup with Him and He with Me,” as in the depths of spiritual communion we now partially do; reknit to those whose empty places at this board below make some of us always solitary and often sad; and having the Master Himself to bless the feast and to part the viands.
“They shall go out no more.” From the supper room Christ went to His Cross; the traitor to his gibbet; the beloved Apostle to his denial; the rest to forsake and to fly. But from that feast there will be no going forth, and the loftier service of heaven shall not interrupt participation in Jesus, for His servantsshall serve Him and see His face.
Brethren, the one question for us all is, “Do I feed upon Jesus Christ? Do I discern that body as broken for and given to me? Do I know that my sins are remitted by the shedding of His blood? No participation in outward rites will bring or sustain the spiritual life. Partaking of Jesus Christ alone can do that, and rites help us to partake of Him in the measure in which they bring His death to heart and mind, and so help faith to grasp it as the means of our salvation. His solemn words,” Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh ^ly blood hath eternal life,” are degraded when they are understood as referrmg to the external ordinance. In the same conversation He Himself interpreted them when He said, •’ He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life.”
“Believe, and thou hast eaten,” said Augustine. “Eat, and ye shall live for ever,” says Jesus Christ.