Introductory Essay
There is an important, though often an overlooked difference between the results of human ingenuity, as embodied in the principles of science, and the institutions of civil society, and jthe results of divine wisdom, as embodied in the doctrines of revelation, and the ordinances of the Christian church. Human science is the offspring of the observations and experiments of beings limited in their faculties, and liable to error, and admits, from this very circumstance of constant growth, frequent correction and indefinite improvement. The principles of natural philosophy are much better understood at present, not only than they were, but than they could have been an hundred years ago; and it is highly probable, that, before the end of another century, they will be still better understood than they are at present: but, as the most finished work of the human mind is necessarily imperfect, there will always be room for the correction of mistakes, and the supply of deficiencies.
It is altogether otherwise with the doctrines of Revelation. They flow forth absolutely pure from the fountain of knowledge and of truth. They are an infallible statement of a portion of the mind of Him who alone hath wisdom. Human science is like the statue, which, under the successive strokes of the artist’s chisel, from a rude, unformed block, gradually assumes a striking resemblance to “the human form divine.” Revealed truth is like our general parent, rising at once into perfect form, and beauty, and life, at the command of his Creator. The improvement even of the most finished statue implies
IV
no absurdity; but the idea of mending the divine work were equally replete with impiety and folly. Human science, being the product of fallible reason, cannot be perfect. There must be deficiency, and there may be error; and it admits of improvement both by correction and addition. There is room for neither in the doctrines of revelation. Divine revelation is, from its very nature, free from error, proceeding from him who cannot be deceived, and who cannot deceive; and though imperfect, inasmuch as it does not extend to all possible objects of religious knowledge, it obviously admits of addition in no other way than by a new revelation. He who has made known to us a portion of his mind, may, if he pleases, make known to us another portion of it; but till he does so, the whole of our duty, in reference to the revelation given, is to endeavour distinctly to apprehend the meaning of its various parts, and the relations, connexions, and dependencies of these various parts, and to yield up the whole of our intellectual and active nature to its influence. It is equally inconsistent with this duty to attempt to make corrections on the system of revealed truth, or to make additions to it.
It would have been a happy thing for the Christian world, if the obvious distinction which has now been pointed out had been steadily kept in view by the teachers of religion. The “truth as it is in Jesus” would not then have been obscured by attempts to illustrate it; nor the dogmas of a vain philosophy mingled with the oracles of divine wisdom, or substituted in their room. The ingenuity, and learning, and labour, which have been often worse than wasted, in endeavouring, by working up into a complete system of religion and morals, such of the materials furnished by revelation, as seemed fit for their purpose, along with such materials as they could collect from other sources, while, without ceremony, such portions of revelation as appeared unsuitable to their object were overlooked or rejected,^ — might have been devoted to a diligent inquiry into the meaning and connexion of the sacred oracles; and thus have discovered there made by his hand who made the world, what they must for ever in vain attempt to make for themselves; and we would not have had reason to doubt, in an age when human science has, in all its branches, attained to an unprecedented state of improvement, whether the principles of revealed truth are not worse understood, among those who profess to believe them, than they were seventeen hundred years ago.
A similar distinction ought to be made between the institutions of civil society and the ordinances of the Christian church. The principles of civil government are at present much better understood than they were or could have been in what are ordinarily called the dark ages; and it is certain, whatever a blind reverence for antiquity may urge to the contrary, that the social arrangements which prevail in our own country are incomparably superior to those which existed even in the most illustrious ages of Grecian and Roman history; and it is equally evident, whatever a partial fondness for the institutions of our own country and age may suggest, that a much more perfect form of social life is not only easily conceivable; but, at some future period, is likely to be realized, than any that has yet been established among mankind. These institutions are the result of human ingenuity, and therefore are imperfect. There is something wanting, and something wrong with the best of them.
But it is otherwise with the ordinances of the Christian church; for they are the appointments of infinite wisdom. They were originally given by one who had a perfect knowledge of the end of such institutions — the religious and moral improvement
VI
of his people; and a perfect knowledge, too, of that intellectual and moral constitution, for the improvement of which they are intended — and, like all the divine works, they are perfect. They are all of them characterized by a beautiful simplicity, which ill accords with the ordinary, but depraved taste of mankind for what is complicated and difficult; but which is a leading feature in all the works and arrangements of infinite wisdom.
It might have been expected, that the institutions of Christianity, bearing on them the impress of supreme authority, would have been accounted too sacred things to be tampered with by those who admitted the divine origin of that religion. But what is there too presumptuous for man to attempt f The same principle which led professed Christians to modify the doctrines of Christ, led them to alter his institutions. In both cases, they flattered themselves that they were making improvements; but what was the truth? By their experiments on the doctrines of Christ, they, in many cases, converted the true elixir of immortal life into a deadly poison, and, at the very best, robbed it of its healing virtues, just in the proportion in which they have infused into it baser ingredients: and by their experiments on the institutions of Christ,they have rendered them utterly unfit for the purposes they were intended to answer; and, instead of important means of religion and moral improvement, they have made them mere vehicles of amusement to the senses or imagination, and in many cases, the instruments of extensive demoralization and of fatal delusion.
No Christian ordinance has been more perverted by superstition than the Lord’s Supper; and no portion of Christian truth has been more involved in obscurity and error than that which respects that ordinance. False opinions and superstitious usages mutually produce and support each other. By this vu
malignant action and re-action, in reference to the Lord’s Supper, where theemblematical nature of the institution, and the figurative language in which, of course, much of the truth respecting it was couched, afforded peculiar facilities for misapprehension, misrepresentation, and delusion, we find, within the course of a few centuries, the simple rite of an assembly of Christians eating bread and drinking wine, in grateful commemoration of the expiatory sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, converted into a splendid and complicated ceremony ;* and the plain, intelligible doctrine that in this ordinance we are presented with, an emblematical representation and confirmation of the great principles of our religion, which, by strengthening our belief, contributes to our spiritual improvement, gives way to a portentous dogma, of which, it is impossible to say whether it be more absurd or impious, that in this ordinance the bread and the wine are, by the mystic power of a priest’s repeating the words of institution, converted into the body, and blood, and divinity of Jesus Christ; which, after having been offered to God by the priest, as an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, are literally eaten and drunk by the recipients. So dangerous is it to deviate from the purity of scriptural truth, and the simplicity of primitive usage. It is impossible to say where we will stop. The probability is, that we will not stop till we land ourselves in the pravity of damnable error, and in the absurdity of senseless superstition.
At the reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the practice of the sacrifice of the mass, were discarded by all the Protestant churches; but there was but a partial return to the purity and sim-
* ‘* That feELSt of free grace and adoption to which Christ invited his disciples to sit as brethren and co-heirs of the happy covenant which at that table was to be sealed to them, even that feast of love and heavenly-admitted fellowship, the seal of filial grace, became the subject of horror, and glouting admiration pageanted about like a dreadful idol.” — Milton. plicity of primitive doctrine and observance. By the Lutheran church, a variety of unauthorized rites were retained, and the doctrine of consubstantiation, or the real, though impalpable and invisible, presence of the body and blood of Christ, along with, and under the substance of bread and wine, in the consecrated elements, was substituted in the room of the not more absurd, and certainly not less intelligible, dogma of transubstantiation; and, although most of the reformed churches rejected both these equally unscriptural doctrines, and approximated much more closely to both the principles and practice of apostolical times, yet still it cannot be denied, that in most of their symbolical books there is much mystical statement, respecting the spiritual presence of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supper, and the manner in which Christians participate of his body and blood when they observe it; as if Christ’s presence in this ordinance were not essentially the same as his presence in any other ordinance, when, by the operation of his Spirit, through the instrumentality of the truth, he communicates to the believing mind knowledge, and purification, and comfort; — as if “the eating Christ’s flesh, and drinking Christ’s blood,” in this ordinance were something else than that participation of those blssings procured by his sufferings and death, which all true Christians enjoy whenever they believe the divine testimony respecting these sufferings and death; — and as if all the peculiarities of this ordinance did not originate in the emblematical form in which it brings Christian truth and its evidence before the mind.
It is obvious, that to be conducive to the spiritual improvement of those who engage in it, the Lord’s Supper must be “a rational service,” — an exercise of the mind and of the heart: and it is equally obvious, that, for the purpose of rendering it a rational service, it is not our business to endeavour to invent
IX
a spiritual meaning to the emblems which are employed in it; but to endeavour to discover the spiritual meaning, which he who appointed the ordinances intended to be attached to these emblems. Some writers on the nature and design of this ordinance, seem to have overlooked this; and, of course, their works, though replete with pious fancies, are rather deficient in such distinct, scripturally supported views, as are calculated at once to satisfy the mind and guide the exercise of the devout Christian. It is often treated of as an oath of allegiance — a federal transaction between God and the communicant — an unbloody sacrifice, or a feast upon a sacrifice — and much fruitless controversy has taken place, which of these, or whether any of them, affords a just representation of its nature, design, and advantages. Figurative descriptions of an emblematical ordinance do not seem peculiarly well fitted for explaining it; and there is a considerable hazard lest, in our following out our tropical illustrations, we end in making the ordinance something altogether different from what Jesus Christ made it; and, as the promise of his blessing is attached only to the observance of his institution, we shut ourselves out from the advantages we might have enjoyed from its observance, if we do not, in simple submission to his authority, and reliance on his Spirit, eat bread and drink wine, in believing remembrance and religious commemoration of his expiatory sufferings and death.
The simplest and, to our own minds, the most satisfactory view of the Lord’s Supper which we have been able to take, is that which considers it as, on the part of Him who instituted it, an emblematical representation and confirmation of the grand peculiarities of the Christian institution; and, on the part of him who observes it, an emblematical expression of a state of mind and heart in accordance with this statement of Christian truth and its evidence.
That there is something more in the Lord’s Supper than meets the external senses — that its emblematical elements are meant to embody Christian doctrine and its emblematical actions, to express Christian thought and feeling, there can be no doubt; and in order to discover what is the Christian truth which the instituted symbols represent, we are not left to conjecture how such emblems may be naturally interpreted. In the statements of our Lord, and of his inspired Apostles, we have abundant and satisfactory information. The following is a short account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, as narrated by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul : — “The Lord Jesus, that night in which he was betrayed, while observing with his Apostles the Jewish passover, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ After the same manner he took the cup, when he had supped, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This cup is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins: drink ye all of it. This do ye as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.’ “^ The meaning of the highly figurative phrases,” eating Christ’s flesh and drinking Christ’s blood,” may be easily ascertained from the following quotations from one of our Lord’s discourses: —” He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my
* Malth. xxvi. 26, &c. Mark xiv. 22; &;c. Luke xxii. 19, Sec. 1 Cor. xi. 23, &c.
XI
blood is drink indeed.“* The apostle Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, makes the following observations in reference to the meaning of the emblems in the Lord’s Supper: — “The cup of blessing, or thanksgiving, which we bless, or over which we give thanks, is it not the communion — the mutual participation of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion — the mutual participation of the body of Christ? for we being many are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. “f These passages of Scripture are the legitimate materials from which we are to form our judgments as to the meaning of the emblems in the Lord’s Supper; and they certainly warrant us to affirm, that this ordinance is an emblematical representation of all the grand peculiarities of the Christian system.
Truth may be brought before the mind in two ways — by verbal statement, or by emblematical representation. The first is best fitted for conveying new information; the second is admirably calculated for recalling, in a striking manner, to the mind, information formerly presented to it. The first method of presenting the leading truths of Christianity is adopted in the written and spoken gospel; the second, in the Lord’s Supper: and it will be found, on examination, that that ordinance is as it were a miniature picture of the same series of divine dispensations, of which we have a detailed history in the word of the truth of the gospel.
It may be worth our while to expand this remark a little, and show how full of Christian truth is every part of this emblematical institution. Let us contemplate the symbolical elements and actions, and apply to our Lord and his Apostles for their spiritual signification. In this ordinance we have bread and wine: and of the bread, our Lord says,” This
* John vl. 47 — 55. t 1 Cor. z. 16, 17.
xu
is my body;” and of the wine, “This is my blood.” These words admit but of two modes of interpretation — the literal, which conducts directly into all the absurdities and blasphemies of transubstantiation; and the figurative, which represents the bread and the wine, as emblems of the body and blood of the Redeemer; just in the same way as the rock which supplied the Israelites with water during their wanderings in the wilderness, is called Christ. The words plainly imply, that he who used them had a body and blood — was a possessor of human nature: and the elements, to a well-instructed Christian, naturally recall the grand fundamental doctrine of the incarnation. In silent, but expressive language, they proclaim, “The word was made flesh, and dwelt among men: inasmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also took part of the same. Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.”
But in the Lord’s Supper we not only have bread and wine, but broken bread and poured-out wine. Our Lord has unfolded the meaning of these emblems also: “This is my body broken, my blood shed; my body broken, my blood shed for you; my body broken, my blood shed for remission of sin unto many.” The broken bread and the poured-out wine are, when thus explained, calculated to suggest to Christian minds, that the incarnate Saviour, after a life of suffering, died a violent death; that these sufferings and this death were vicarious and expiatory, undergone in the room of sinners, to obtain their salvation. It concentrates as it were the principal statements both of the prophets and the evangelists; and, with one glance of the eye, we see the wondrous plan of human redemption through the mediation of the incarnate only begotten. It tells us more touchingly than words could do, that “Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; that he “i’as wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities; that in him we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins; that he has given himself for us a sacrifice and an offering; and has thus brought us unto God.”
But the doctrines of the incarnation and the atonement are not the only principles of Christian truth which arc embodied in the Lord’s Supper. Had their representation been its sole object, it might have been gained, by the minister’s exhibiting bread and wine; and whde he pointed to them, proclaiming, “This is Christ’s body broken; this is Christ’s blood shed for you.” But this is not the Lord’s Supper. In that ordinance, we have not only broken bread and poured out wine; but the broken bread is eaten, and the poured-out wine is drank. This also is replete with spiritual meaning. From the passage above quoted, from one of our Lord’s discourses, it is plain, that eating Christ’;? flesh and drinking Christ’s blood, is significant of that interest in his suflerings and death, which, by the divine appointment, is connected with the belief of the truth respecting them: so that here we are furnished with an emblematical representation of that cardinal doctrine of Christianity, that “whosoever believeth in Christ Jesus shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” As b;^ad and wine, though in themselves most nutritious food, will not nourish us, unless we eat the one and drink the other, so the expiatory sufferings and death of the incarnate son of God, though of themselves adequate to the salvation of the greatest sinner, will not save us unless we believe.
But we have not yet exhausted the spiritual meaning of the emblems in the Lord’s Supper. Had it been our Lord’s object merely to embody, in an emblematical institution, the principles, “that the only begotten of God in human nature suffered and died in the room of sinners, to procure their salvation; and
Ihat faith in these truths is at once absolutely necessary and completely sufficient to secure to the sinner an interest in this salvation;” it is probable that the sacred rite would have been of such a nature as admitted of performance by a single individual. But this is not the case with the Lord’s Supper. It is a social institution, and Christians must “come together to eat the Lord’s Supper.” Without any explicit revelation on the subject, knowing, as we do from other passages of Scripture, that a very intimate relation does subsist among all the true followers of Jesus Christ, we might perhaps have warrantably concluded that this mystical feast was intended emblematically to represent their holy fellowship. But it is our wish to say nothing in reference to the meaning of this ordinance but what we are distinctly taught in Scripture. Indeed, there is no necessity to have recourse to inference. The passage already quoted from the aposile Paul is most explicit. In partaking of the cup of blessing, there is a communion, or mutual participation of the blood of Christ; in partaking of the broken bread, there is a communion, or mutual participation of the body of Christ; and the consequence of this mutual participation is, that the partakers are all one body and one bread. The reality and the nature of that intimate relation which subsists among all Christ’s genuine followers is there strikingly exhibited. They are holy society, bound together by their common faith in the grand leadiag truths of Christianity, embodied in this emblematical institution, and, by their common love to that Saviour who is in it, “evidently set forth, crucified and slain.”
It is deeply to be regretted, that this part of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper has been so much overlooked and forgotten, and that, “the symbol of our common Christianity” should have been almost tmiversally converted into” the badge and criterion
XV
of a party, a mark of discrimination applied to distinguish the nicer shades of difference among Christians.“* It was not so from the beginning. The church of Christ was originally one body: the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is suited to such an order of things; and however perverted from its original purpose, though, instead of the common place of friendly meeting for all who believe the truth and love the Saviour, it has in many cases become “the line of demarcation, the impassable boundary which separates and disjoins them,” still, in its obvious emblematical meaning, it sounds a retreat from the unjiatural divisions which prevail among the genuine followers of the Saviour, by proclaiming, that they are indeed all “one in Christ Jesus.”
There is just one other important principle of Christian truth which we consider as embodied in the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is a positive institution. It is entirely founded on the authority of Jesus Christ, as Him to whom all power in heaven and earth belongs, [t does not like what may be termed the moral part of our religion necessarily to arise out of the relations in which we stand to God as the God of salvation, and to Jesus Christ as the Redeemer of mankind, such as faith, confidence, and obedience. The sole obligation of this ordinance arises out of its appointment by Christ. It would have been our duty to have gratefully and devoutly remembered our Saviour’s dying love, though no express command had been given us to that effect; but it would not have been our duty to have expressed this grateful and devout recollection by the eating bread and drinking wine, had not Jesus Christ said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” The ordinance, then, embodies in it Christ’s claims on the implicit obedience of his followers, and holds him forth as their Lawgiver as well as their Saviour.
* Hall.
Thus have we seen how replete with Christian truth is this emblematical institution. It forcibly presents to the Christian’s mind these great fundamental principles of his religion, “that Jesus Christ, the Son of God. assumed human nature, and suffered and died in the room of sinners, to obtain their salvation; that all who believe God’s testimony concerning this method of salvation, shall be saved; that all who are thus interested in this Christian salvation form a holy fellowship, bound together by the faith of the same truth, and reliance on the same Saviour; and that all who belong to this Christian fellowship are bound to submit implicitly to the Saviours authority, and to walk in all his ordinances and commandments blameless.”
But the Lord’s Supper contains in it an emblematical comfirmation as well as an emblematical exhibition, of Christian doctrine. It presents to us not only the truth, but its evidence. The Lord’s Supper involves in it satisfactory evidence of the truth of Christianity in general. It has been remarked, by one of the most ingenious defenders of Christianity,* that there can be no reasonable doubt of the reality of any event which is of such a nature as that men’s senses can clearly and fully judge of it, which took place publicly, and in commemoration of which, public institutions were immediately appointed, and have continued to be observed with uninterrupted succession till the present time. The facts of our Lord’s death and resurrection are facts to which these characters belong. They were events, of the reality of which, men, in the exercise of the senses common to the species, could clearly and fully judge — they took place publicly, — in the institutions of the Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s day, institutions more closely connected than seems generally to be apprehended by Christians in the present age, we have public ob-
* Leslie. servances instituted in commemoration of these events, and which we know, from the most indubitable evidence, have been uninterruptedly observed from the period of their institution down to our own times. It is impossible for the ingenuity of infidelity to account satisfactorily for these facts, on any principle which does not involve in it the truth of Christianity; and it does not seem possible to conceive of a more simple, yet more effectual method of transmitting unimpaired the principal evidences of the truth of Christianity, in the miraculous events accompanying the Saviour’s death and resurrection, than by wrapping it up, if I may use the expression, in the two kindred positive institutious of the Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s day.
The use of the Lord’s Supper, as confirming Christian truth, is however by no means confined to this general proof of the truth of Christianity, as a system which it involves. It not only proves that a certain system of principles, denominated Christianity, is true and divine, but it proves that the doctrines which it emblematically embodies, form the leadingprinciples of that true and divine system. It does not, like some very clear and convincing statements of the evidences of Christianity leave you in the dark as to what Christianity is. And here we have much reason to admire the “manifold wisdom” discovered in this emblematical institution. Even a slight variation in its details would have rendered it completely unfit for answering this most important purpose. Had our Lord merely enjoined that his followers should frequently assemble around the same board, and eat bread, and drink wine together, the rite might have been plausibly represented as nothing more than an exhibition of the tendency and design of Christianity to put an end to all unfriendly divisions among m?.nkind,and to bind them together in the bands of fraternal affection. Had he even
XVlll
gone somewhat farther, and, on appointing such an institution, proclaimed, “This is the bread of life; he who eateth of it shall never hunger — this is the wine of the kingdom; he that drinketh of it shall never thirst — eat, drink, and live for ever,” still, without doing any violence to the meaning either of the symbols, or of the words explicatory of them, we might have been told that all that was meant was an emblematical representation of the tendency and design of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, to make men good, and wise, and happy. But it is impossible thus to give meaning to the emblems in the Lord’s Supper, as explained by our Lord, without admitting, that the incarnation and the atonement, are essential parts of Christianity: and the same evidence which proves Christianity to be divine, proves this to be Christianity. The doctrine of salvation, through the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, as the substitute of sinners, is so wrought into the very substance of this ordinance, that no ingenuity can extract it. So long as the Lord’s Supper continues in the church — so long as the words of the institution are repeated, and the instituted symbols displayed, there never shall be wanting in the church a clear demonstration that the death of the Son of God, as a sacrifice for sin, was a doctrine of the primitive age of Christianity.
It is thus that the Lord’s Supper confirms, as well as exhibits the leading principles of Christianity; and it is thus that it answers to the description which is often given of it as a sealing ordinance. To this denomination, which, by the way, is not a scriptural one, very confused, and, in some cases, dangerously mistaken ideas are attached. The covenant of mercy was ratified, or sealed, by the blood of the Son of God, shed on Calvary; and of this blood-shedding, the Lord’s Supper is not the repetition, but the commemoration: and as to the Lord’s Supper sealing to the recipient his individual interest in the blessings secured by that covenant, the only scriptural idea that can be attached to these words is, that this ordinance is fitted as an exhibition both of truth and its evidence, to confirm that faith in the Gospel, which at once connects us with the Savioui, and produces the consciousness of enjoying some, and the well-grounded hope of enjoying all the blessings of his salvation.
The Lord’s Supper which is thus, on the part of him who instituted it, an emblematical exhibition and confirmation of the leading principles of Christianity, is, on the part of him who observes it, an emblematical expression of a state of mind and of heart, accordant with this statement of Christian truth and its evidence. And here lies one of the principal differences between the verbal exhibition of Christian truth and evidence, in the written or spoken gospel, and the emblematical exhibition of Christian truth and evidence in the Lord’s Supper. In both cases, it is the duty of those to whom the exhibition is made, to meet it with a corresponding state of thought and affection; but it is in the latter case only that a solemn profession of such an accordance of mind and heart is made. The taking the bread into our hands, and eating it, the taking the wine into our hands, and drinkini]^ it, are the appointed emblematical method of professing our faith of the truths represented in this ordinance; our reliance on Jesus Christ as our own Saviour, our unreserved submission to his authority, and our cordial love to all who, through the faith of the truth, rely on this Saviour, and are interested in his salvation.
The intelligent and believing communicant responds, as it were, to the voice of the Saviour, ‘’ This is my body broken, my blood shed for many, for the remission of sins:” -’ It is thy body broken, it is thy blood shed for many, for the remission of sins. I knoW;, and am sure, that this is a faithful saying, that Jesus
XX
Christ, God’s Son in human nature, suffered and died in the room of sinners, to obtain their salvation, and that whosoever belie veth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”
But, in observing the Lord’s Supper, there is more than an expression of the belief of the gospel testimony in its general form, as embodied in this emblematic institution; there is also a profession of personal reliance on the Saviour’s sufferings and death, as the expiation of our guilt, and the price of our salvation. This is the necessary and immediate result of the belief of the testimony in its true extent, and is so closely connected with it, that it is not much to be wondered at if it has sometimes been indentified with it. The emblems, as explained by our Lord, not merely intimate in general that Christ died for men — for sinners; but that he died for those in particular for whom this ordinance is intended, that is, for believers: — “This is my body broken for you, this is my blood shed for i/om.” The state of mind and heart corresponding to such a declaration, is a personal reliance on the Saviour, a cordial reception of his salvation; and the language of the conduct of the believing communicant is, my Lord and my (lod, MY Saviour and my all.
In the observance of the Lord’s Supper, there is also a profession of an accordance of mind and heart with the view which the ordinance emblematically exhibits of the unity of the body of Christ. The believing communicant embraces, in the arms of his affections, the whole brotherhood of believers, and the language of his conduct, in eating of the common loaf, and drinking out of the common cup of the Christian family, is, “I love them all in the truth, for the truth’s sake which is in them, and will abpde in them for ever.” The observation of the Lord’s Supper does not imply in it a profession of a complete accordance of sentiment with every individual, or even with the religious body, along with whom we observe it. It implies a profession of our union with them in the faith of the truth, which the ordinance emblematically represents. It necessarily implies this, but it implies no more.
Finally, in observing the Lord’s Supper, there is plainly implied, a profession of unreserved and implicit submission to the authority of Jesus Christ. The ordinance, as we have shown above, is a positive institution. It involves in it an assertion of the authority of Jesus Christ over the conscience; and the observance of the ordinance is an unequivocal acknowledgment of this authority. The only reason why we observe it is, that Jesus Christ has commanded us to observe it; and in observing it, we say, “We do this just because Christ has commanded us to do it, and we are ready to do whatever he commands us, and ask no better reason than that he hath commanded us.” When Jesus Christ puts the cup into our hands, he as it were says, “The man in whose hands this cup is found shall be my servant for ever;” and on taking it, we as it were respond, “Truly, O Lord, we are thy servants — we are thy servants, thou hast loosed our bonds; thine we are, and thee we will serve: we will walk in all thy commandments and ordinances blameless.”
This view of the Lord’s Supper, as on the part of him who instituted it, an emblematical representation and confirmation of the grand peculiarities of the Christian institution; and on the part of him who observes it, an emblematical expression of a state of mind and of heart in accordance with this statement of Christian truth and its evidence, has at least this advantage, that it is completely free of mysticism; it enables us distinctly to see why the observance of this ordinance should be restricted to persons possessed of a peculiar character, to explain the manner in which this ordinance contributes to spiritual imxxu
provement, and furnishes its with a plain, palpable rule, to ascertain whether we may safely observe the Lord’s Supper, and to guide our devotional exercises when at the communion table.
The exclusion of all but genuine Christians from aright to observe the Lord’s Supper, is not an arbitrary arrangement: it rises out of the nature of the case, and, like all the appointments of the God of nature and of grace, is found characterized by wisdom, equity, and benignity. How can a grossly ignorant person derive any advantage from observing such an ordinance as the Lord’s Supper f To a mind in some measure enlightened in the meaning and evidence of Christian truth, the ordinance is calculated to recall and impress the great realities of the Christian economy, and to subject the whole of the inner man to their purifying and blissful influence. But to the man who does not know well who Jesus Christ is, in what his mediation consists, what made it necessary, what blessings he has procured for mankind, and how we, as individuals, are to obtain these blessings, of what intellectual or moral benefit can it possibly be to observe the Lord’s Supper He eats a little bread and drinks a little wine, and profanes a divine institution, and sinks himself deeper in guilt and delusion than ever.
The unbeliever is obviously equally unfitted for deriving spiritual advantage from this ordinance, and indeed cannot observe it without making a false profession — without “lyinfy, not to men, but to God.” This remark is equally applicable to those who, instead of relying solely on Jesus Christ, crucified for salvation, are going about to establish their own righteousness, not submitting themselves to the righteousness of God — to those who are strangers to the love of the Christian brotherhood — inA to those who are living in the habitual neglect or violation of any of the laws of Jesus. From the very xxm
nature of the institution, it is impossible that such persons can engage in it without dishonouring God and injuring their own souls; and of course that law of Christ is a holy, and just, and good one, which forbids such persons to approach the communion table.
There is a beautiful unity of principle pervading all the various methods adopted in the scheme of grace, for promoting man’s spiritual improvement. The truth as it is in Jesus, known, and believed, and meditated on, is the grand instrument by which the Holy Spirit performs all his wonders in the new creation. It is delightful to observe this principle exemplified even in the ritual part of Christianity. There are many who seem to ascribe a sort of magical power to the Lord’s Supper, The comecrnted elements, as they I’ke to phrase it (and with them consecration does not refer to the Saviours appointment, but to the mysterious effects of certain words uttered by the officiating minister.) are considered as a species of talismans, of miraculous efficacy in guarding the :-o from the attacks of the powers of darkness. The Lord’s Supper does us good just in the same way as the gospel does us good. In both, the truth as it is in Jesus, in its meaning and evidence, is held forth to us, and just in the degree in which it is apprehended by us will we be made good and happy. It is a great mercy that the communication of saving blessings by the Lord’s Supper and otJier ordinances, is not confined those who can satisfactorily explain to their own minds the manner in which these institutions work out their intended results. At the same time, there is no doubt that such knowledge is of high importance, ard greatly and directly tends to promote both the holiness and comfort of the true Christian.
These observations will be strangely misconceived, if they are considered by any one as intended to cast into the shade the cardinal doctrine of the necessity of the influence of the Holy Spirit, in order to our deriving saving advantage from the Lord’s Supper. Put the influence of the Holy Spirit operates not miraculously, but according to the established laws of the human mind; and in the Lord’s Supper, it is by his fixing the mind, and keeping it fixed on the emblematical display of Christian truth and its evidence, that he renders the ordinance effectual to the strengthening of our faith, and through the strengthening of our faith, to the general improvement of our spiritual character.
The work of self inquiry, which, from the nature of the case, ought to precede our observing the Lord’s Supper, is often represented as a peculiarly difficult, and operose business; but if the above views of that ordinance be correct, the point to be ascertained is brought within a narrow limit, and little, except an honest wish to know the truth, should be necessary, for the resolution of the question. If a man is ignorant of the way of salvation through Christ Jesus, if he does not really believe that the Son of God in human nature suffered and died, the just in the room of the unjust, tfiat he might bring them to God, it he does not rely on Jesus Christ, and on him alone, for salvation, if he does not love genuine Christians, just because they are genuine Christians, and if he habitually neglects or violates any of the laws of Jesus Christ, in his present condition, he is utterly incapacitated from deriving any spiritual advantage from this ordinance. And on the other hand, if a man understands and believes the testimony of God concerning his Son, trusts in him as his only and all-sufficient Saviour, loves all who love him, and are like him, and while conscious of much wanting and much wrong, has the testimony of his conscience, that he delights in the law of the Lord after the inward man, — such a person ought to avail himself of every opportunity of obeying Christ’s
€oinrnandment, “Do this in remembrance of me,” and may reasonably anticipate from such obedience, both spiritual enjoyment and improvement.
If we wish to obtain either, however, it is of importance that we keep steadily in view the nature and design of the Lord’s Supper. When engaged in eating bread and drinking wine, in obedience to our Redeemer’s command, our great endeavour should be to yield up our minds to the native influence of the truth and its evidence, as representjd to us in the ordinance. The business of the communicant is simple; and were we in any good measure what we should be, easy. It is to look to Jesus, plainly set forth, crucified and slain — to behold the Lamb of God bearing and bearing away the sin of the world, and to allou’ these truths, so strikingly exhibited, so powerfully confirmed, to produce that love to God and to his Son, that penitence, humility, and resignation, that love to the brotherhood, and benevolence to all men, that weaned ness from the world, and that earnest lonsring for a better one, which are their natural results. The best preparation for comfortable, profitable communicating, is habitually to “let the word of Christ dwell in us richly.” The more thoroughly we are acquainted with Christian truth, the more firmly we believe it, the more readily will the instituted symbols in the Lord’s Supper recall that truth and its evidence, and, under the influence of the good spirit, contribute the more to our sanrtification and consolation.
It is to the r.ible that we have endeavoured to send our readers for their views of the nature and design of the Lord’s Supper; and it is to the Bible we would wish to send them, as furnishing them with the best of all “Sacramental Directories,” the only infallible “Guide to the Lord’s Table.” At the same time, we are disposed to think, that, when kept in their own place, these Treatises, whether doctrinal or devotional, which pious men have given to the world, on the Lord’s Supper, may be turned to good account by the intelligent Christian. From almost all of them, important and useful instruction may be derived; but, perhaps none of these Treatises possess more excellencies, and fewer defects, than Matthew Henry’s Communicant’s Companion. It is much more than a general account of the nature and design of the Lord’s Supper, and a set of rules for the observance of that institution; it contains in it an admirable view of Christian doctrine, experience, and duty, and is peculiarly fitted to prevent persons from taking that insulated view of the ordinance, which, with too many, converts it into a mere rite, a ‘’ piece of bodily service, which profits little.” It is distinguished, in a high degree, by the characteristic good qualities of the minor works of its author, who, on a scale of literary merit, graduated on the principle which will regulate the judgment of the last day, would occupy a high place among English writers. It is very plain, very pious, and very practical. There is a simplicity, a naturalness, and a familiarity, which renders it peculiarly delightful reading, and makes us almost fancy ourselves enjoying the conversation of its venerable Author. With these views of the following Treatise, we cannot but apprehend that much good must be derived from its attentive, prayerful perusal; but the advice we would give, as to reading this or any other human composition, is that of the apostle — ‘’ prove all things, hold fast that which is good.”
J. B.
.Edi?ih(ri>-h, £priJ, 1825.