Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

TREATISE

ON

THE LORD'S SUPPER.

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

ON THE REMARKABLENESS OF THE PARTICULAR TIME CHOSEN FOR THE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

THE two Sacraments or sealing ordinances of the New Testament, are Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Of both of them it may justly be said, that, while they illustrate the nature, they also afford one of the most conclusive evidences of the divine authority, or truth, of the Gospel. At the same time that they set forth, under the most simple and appropriate emblems and actions, the peculiar doctrines of our holy religion, they exhibit, if duly considered, a most striking demonstration of its heavenly origin. The same thing may be said with respect to the two corresponding ordinances which existed under the Old Testament dispensation, namely, Circumcision and the Passover.

The importance of all these ordinances, in establishing the truth of that religion to which they belong, has been beautifully pointed out in that admirable and well-known treatise by Leslie, entitled "A Short and Easy Method with the Deists." He justly observes, that if the matters of fact which are recorded in the Scriptures be true, they will sufficiently evince the

truth of the doctrines which are there delivered. He therefore lays down four rules as to the truth of matters of fact, which, as he shows, are of such a kind that those matters of fact, in which they all meet, cannot possibly be false. "The rules are these: 1. That the matter of fact be such, as that men's outward senses, their eyes and ears, may be judges of it. 2. That it be done publicly in the face of the world. 3. That not only public monuments be kept up in memory of it, but some outward actions be performed. 4. That such monuments, and such actions or observances, be instituted, and do commence from the time that the matter of fact was done." The substance of the treatise is then taken up in demonstrating that all these four rules hold good, and are strictly fulfilled, in regard to the leading facts which are recorded in Scripture, such as those which are connected with the Passover, and with the institution of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper.

It is chiefly of the last-mentioned ordinance that we propose at present to treat; but, in so doing, our object is, not to exhibit the particular subservience of this institution to the general argument which Leslie has so amply and ably maintained for the truth of the Gospel, but simply to direct the special attention of our readers to some very interesting reflections, connected with the particular time at which the Lord's Supper was instituted. To that general argument, all that is required, in regard to the time of the institution, is merely, that it shall be immediately connected with the matters of fact which it is intended to commemorate. Now, for this purpose, it is obviously sufficient that the monument or memorial should commence from the time that the matter of fact was done." But while the observations, which are now about to be made, will direct our thoughts to a very striking evidence of our Lord's divinity, and therefore to the truth and divine origin of our religion, the circumstance to which they relate is the remarkable one, that the ordinance of the

Supper was instituted, not immediately after, but immediately before that event, of which, after the event had taken place, it was to continue, till the time of his second coming, to be the solemn and significant commemoration.

It is obvious, from the narrative of the evangelists, and expressly declared by the Apostle Paul, on the special testimony of our Lord himself, that this holy ordinance was instituted by "the Lord Jesus," and for the first time administered, "the same night in which he was betrayed." The principal object which the Saviour had in view, in instituting this ordinance and enjoining its future observance, is sufficiently intimated by the words of his solemn injunction, " This do in remembrance of me," (Luke ii. 19;) and by the remark of the Apostle, "For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." Now, it may, without irreverence, be said, that, so far as this particular object was concerned, it would have been perfectly sufficient had the institution of the Supper been postponed till after his resurrection from the dead. This was the method actually adopted in regard to the ordinance of Baptism. Those persons, indeed, who became our Lord's disciples during the period of his personal ministry, and previously to his death, were baptised in his name, and were thus discriminated not only from those Jews who had not been baptised, but also from those who had been baptised "into the baptism of John." But although previously to our Lord's death there was a baptism, adapted to existing circumstances, by which those who became his disciples made a public profession of their faith in him, as "the Christ, the Son of the living God;" yet it is plain that what is strictly speaking denominated Christian Baptism, that is, "baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," was not instituted till after his resurrection, and immediately before his ascension into heaven.

This being the case, there would have been nothing inconsistent with the nature of our Lord's personal ministry, had he deferred the institution of the Supper, as well as of Baptism, till after his resurrection that event by which he was "declared to be the Son of God with power." We are well aware that it was not consistent with the Divine counsels, that he should, after that event, in any respect resume his public ministry. "God raised him up the third day, and showed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God;" (Acts x. 41:) and very satisfactory reasons can be assigned, illustrative of the wisdom and expediency of this determination and procedure. But as both Baptism and the Lord's Supper were ordinances which were specially and exclusively intended for his own disciples, and could not be administered to any till such times as they could be regarded in that character, there would not have been any thing in the institution of the latter, any more than of the former, even if it had taken place after his resurrection, in the least degree at variance with the wise and righteous purpose of not resuming his public ministry among those who, notwithstanding all the words which he had spoken, and all the mighty works which he had done in the midst of them, had not only despised and rejected, but crucified and slain him.

There appears, therefore, to be something not a little remarkable in the particular time which was chosen by our Lord for instituting the ordinance of the Supper. By his instituting it previously to his death, we are taught, indeed, to regard it as being at that moment a prediction, or typical representation of his death, as an event then future, though near at hand. Viewed in this light, there is, of course, nothing remarkable in the time of its appointment,-unless it be, first, its coinciding with the time of celebrating the ordinance of the Passover; and, secondly, the tenderness of heart, yet the sublime composure, and, as it were, the eager anticipation, with which he conducted the deeply affecting solemnity.

It cannot be doubted that the ordinance of the Lord's Supper was intended to be at first a sacramental type, and afterwards as a sacramental commemoration of his death. It was only at the time of its original celebration, however, that it possessed the character of a type. This character it could not retain beyond the moment of his death, and that took place in the course of the following day. The other is the principal character which it was intended to bear, and to bear as long as we shall be required to observe it in remembrance of an absent Lord.

Considering, then, that this last is the leading and permanent character of the Lord's Supper, we cannot help thinking, that, besides the purpose of constituting it a prediction of his death-of making it typical, though only for a day-there must have been other and higher ends to be served, by instituting it previously to that all-important event of which it was ordained to be the sacred and endearing memorial. Nor will it be difficult to perceive what these ends must have been. Nothing is more obvious, or more certain, than that the future observance of this ordinance, even by our Lord's immediate disciples, depended entirely on the consequences with which his death was found to be connected, and especially on the fulfilment of his promise, that he would "rise again the third day." Had he not risen, "as he said,”—in other words, had he been left in the grave to "see corruption"--had he thus been utterly forsaken or disowned of God-had he been proved to be guilty alike of impiety and imposture-how could it have been expected that any of his followers, however devoted and enthusiastic they might have been in his cause, should have continued to cherish his memory with affection and reverence-to glory in his crossand publicly to proclaim how fervently they honoured the character, and how devotedly they celebrated the love of one who, if not deluded and infatuated himself, had so plainly deceived, so grossly insulted, and so

B

« ForrigeFortsæt »