Questions on Chapter 15.
dispensation was now to be superseded by the new, the seal of the covenant should be correspondingly changed; hence at the conclusion of the last authorized Passover, the holy supper is instituted, as a perpetual memorial and abiding seal of the covenanted mercy and grace of God, till the Saviour “shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 15.
QUESTION 1. In what scriptures is the origin of the Lord’s-supper set forth?
2. How do the Romanists understand the terms, “This is my body,” and “This my blood”?
3. What is the correct interpretation of them?
4.Who advocated consubstantiation? and wherein does it differ from transubstantiation?
5. How may both these theories be refuted?
6. To what opposite extreme did Zuinglius and his party go?
7. What is the scriptural view of the subject?
CHAPTER 16. — THE LORD’S-SUPPER — THE RIGHT TO
PARTAKE OF IT CONSIDERED.
WE next inquire, Who have a RIGHT to the Supper of the Lord? We present it as a Bible position, standing forth prominently to view, that —
All real Christians — that is, all who are “the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” — have a divine right to membership and communion, embracing full fellowship, with the privilege of the Lord’s-supper, in every Church, or congregation of Christians, among whom their lot may be cast.
This proposition will be found to contain the principle according to which the great question of Christian communion now before us may be clearly and satisfactorily settled. Before we bring the proposition to bear directly on the question, and exhibit, in all its important aspects, its connection with the subject of Christian communion, we should weigh the proposition itself in the balances of the sanctuary. We bespeak for it a careful investigation and a fair trial. If it be unsound, let it be at once rejected; but if it be according to the teachings of Heaven and the principles of eternal truth, let us plant ourselves upon it, as on a sure foundation, impregnable and indestructible as the “word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” We now appeal to the Scripture testimony to learn who they are that have a right to the fellowship of the Church, to the immunities and privileges of the house of God, to the communion of the Supper of the Lord. If we trace the entire history of the planting of the Church, as laid down in The Acts of the Apostles, we shall find in the apostolic administration but one invariable practice upon the subject. Such as “gladly received the word,” such as “believed,” not only on the day of Pentecost, but on all subsequent occasions, were without exception and without delay admitted to the communion and fellowship of the Church. This was done too, not on the ground of their perfect agreement in all their views of Christian doctrine, or ordinances, or Church order, but solely on the ground of the fact that they were supposed to have been made partakers of the spiritual benefits of Christianity “by faith in Christ Jesus.”
It is indeed surprising that there should be thought any plausible ground for diversity of sentiment among Christians as to the true basis of Christian communion, after we have looked upon the clear and unmistakable apostolic platform exhibited upon the subject in the fifteenth chapter of The Acts of the Apostles. Here we find the apostles and elders assembled in solemn council to adjudicate upon the very question we are now discussing. Their decision, and the grounds upon which it was based, are committed to record. This record remains as an imperishable memorial which should never be overlooked — a light to shine upon the pathway of the Church in all succeeding generations.
The history of the case is this: There arose in the Church of Antioch a dissension on the subject of communion. Certain Judaizing teachers from Jerusalem had visited them, and troubled them much with some of their close communion principles. They had taught them that there was a certain rite, ceremony, or ordinance, which many of them had neglected, that was essential to salvation, and of course that such as had hitherto neglected this ought not to be admitted to the communion and fellowship of the Church. Paul and Barnabas opposed strenuously these close communion teachers, and the sectarian and schismatic principles they were inculcating. But still, for a complete and more authoritative settlement of the matter, it was agreed that Paul and Barnabas, and some other disciples, should go up to Jerusalem, and call the apostles and elders together for the decision of the question. We have the record of their decision, and the reasons of it. Now we invite special attention to the grounds of this decision. It was a question of communion and fellowship, identical with the very question now before us. The question was whether certain Gentiles, claiming to be Christians, though they had neglected a certain ceremony which some contended was essential, should be recognized as Christians, and admitted to communion. The decision is in favor of their admission. But what are the grounds of that decision? What are the specific reasons upon which it is based? We answer, They are precisely the same that are comprised in the proposition we have laid down as the basis of Christian communion, and which we are now endeavoring to establish by Scripture testimony.
It ought to be strictly noted on this subject that we here have an infallible, an inspired touch-stone, or clue, for the settlement of the communion question, whenever, wherever, or however, it may arise; for if these persons, whose right to Church-communion is contested, are admitted to communion on certain grounds,, and those grounds are specifically stated, it necessarily follows that in all cases of contested right of communion, whatever may be the ground of the objection, the same reasons specified in this case would establish a similar right, and require a similar decision. But what are these reasons? St. Peter, in pleading the right of these Gentiles to communion, declares: “God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us.” Here, God is appealed to as a witness for the Gentiles of their claim to communion, on the ground that he had “given them the Holy Ghost” — that is, he had conferred on them the spiritual blessings of Christianity — they had received the converting power of the gospel — “even as he did unto us” — that is, they enjoy the same spiritual religion with us; consequently they are entitled to the same Church privileges. But St. Peter goes on: “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Here the plain argument of St. Peter is this: these Gentiles are true believers, they are genuine Christians, they are “the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus;” consequently they have a right to the privileges and fellowship of the Church.
Now, we ask, will not the same argument prove the same thing in all similar cases? If these have a right to Church-communion because “their hearts are purified by faith,” must not all whose “hearts are purified by faith,” or all who are “the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus,” have a right to Church-communion? Quod erat demonstrandum.
St. Peter still proceeds: “Now, therefore, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” Here the argument for their right to communion is grounded upon the fact that all are believed to be heirs of a similar salvation.
After St. Peter had closed his argument, St. Paul and St. Barnabas next spoke on the same side of the question, and using a similar mode of reasoning. They appealed to the fact that God, through their instrumentality, had “wrought miracles and wonders among the Gentiles.” In other words, they argued, God has conferred upon the Gentiles the spiritual blessings of Christianity, therefore they have right to the external privileges and ordinances of the Church. Here, let it be remembered, there is not one word about the peculiar notions of these persons concerning doctrines and ordinances, about “baptisms and the laying on of hands” — no, nor about any thing else, but the simple fact of their conversion to God. This, and this alone, was the ground upon which their right to communion was affirmed. This fact no man dare deny.
If we turn our attention to the Apostolic Epistles, we find frequent reference to the same platform of communion. St. Paul (see 1 Corinthians 10.), in commenting on the Lord’s-supper, says: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.” We subjoin for the better understanding of this passage a few extracts from leading commentators. Dr. Clarke says: “As only the one loaf was used at the Passover, and those who partook of it were considered to be one religious body, so we who partake of the eucharistical bread and wine, in commemoration of the sacrificial death of Christ, are one spiritual society, because we are all made partakers of that one Christ whose blood was shed for us to make an atonement for our sins, as the blood of the paschal lamb was shed and sprinkled in reference to this of which it was the type. All who join together in celebrating the Lord’s-supper, and are partakers of that one bread, give proof by this that they are Christians, and have fellowship with Christ.” Whitby paraphrases as follows: “For we being many are one bread, and one body (or, because the bread is one, one loaf being broken for us all, we who partake of it being many are one body, owning ourselves thereby all members of that body of which Christ Jesus is the Head); for we are all partakers of that one bread; and thus you see that by partaking of this Christian sacrifice we own ourselves to have communion with the Lord Jesus, and with the whole society of Christians.” Macknight paraphrases thus: “The cup of blessing for which we bless, is it not the joint participation of the body of Christ?” In reference to the passage under review, we may remark that it affords clear evidence, first, that all the disciples of Christ are one body, represented by the one loaf. Secondly, that all who belong to that one body — that is, all Christians, or believers — have a right to partake of that one communion. Thirdly, that all who partake of this communion in a proper manner, not only commune with Christ, but with the whole body of Christ, or the entire Christian Church. Fourthly, that all who have communion with Christ, the Head, have a right to communion with his entire body, or with the whole Church of believers; hence we derive from this passage another proof of the correctness of our position. It clearly demonstrates that all Christians have a divine right to the communion and fellowship of the Christian Church; and this right is based alone upon the fact that they are the children of God.
In Romans 14:1-3, we read as follows: “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth; for God hath received him.”
On the third verse, Dr. Clarke remarks: “Both, being sincere and upright, and acting in the fear of God, are received as heirs of eternal life, without any difference on account of these religious scruples or prejudices.” Whitby remarks: “‘God hath received him’ — that is, into communion with him, viz., by giving them that Spirit which is the medium of our union to and communion with him.” Here we perceive a clear recognition of the same basis of communion. A question arose in the Church at Rome whether certain professed Christians, who had partaken of meat which had been offered in sacrifice to idols, ought to be admitted to the communion of the Church. St. Paul decides in their favor; but on what ground does he render that verdict? He bases it alone on the ground that “God had received them.” No allusion is made to ordinances or peculiar notions of doctrine. The fact that God recognizes them as his children is presented as the great, the only, thing required as an indispensable prerequisite to communion.
In the twelfth chapter of Romans and the twelfth chapter of First Corinthians the Church is represented as “one body in Christ,” and all the Christians — that is, all who have been “baptized by one Spirit,” or “made to drink into one Spirit” — are represented as members of that “one body,” and “every one members one of another.” It is commanded that there be “no schism in the body.” So intimate is the union and communion here inculcated that all the members are required to “have the same care one for another,” and mutually to participate in the sufferings and honors of each other. If “one member suffer,” all the members are required to “suffer with it;” if “one member be honored,” all are required to “rejoice with it.” What language could be plainer, or more direct to the point in hand, than the above? The union and communion of all Christians is here enjoined in terms which must imply full fellowship in the closest and the strongest sense of the word.