We should carefully and diligently worship and serve the Lord our Maker, just as he has commanded us, precisely, and not according to any traditions of men, decrees of councils, uninspired canons, or our own vain imaginations. Religious and Gospel-worship and ordinances should be kept, pure and entire, free from all human mixtures and inventions. These are the feelings and views which our Churches profess to entertain—to walk by—and to hold. If in any instances, or degree, we deviate from them, we do it mistakenly—and unintentionally; and therefore we trust, should this be the case, it will not be imputed to us, as a wilful aberration from the original purity and primitive glory of the Gospel. We profess, and wish to take Christ’s spiritual and heavenly Religion, just as he, and his Apostles have delivered it to us, in the sacred Volume.—And that we may all be fully and perfectly satisfied, that while remembering the bitter sufferings and agonies of our once crucified, but now risen Redeemer in the sacrament of his supper—in the elements of bread and wine, we are only acting in pious obedience to a plain, positive, and express command, as express as any one can be, of our glorious high Priest, the captain of our salvation.—It is proposed, in the sequel, to—
I. Consider the original and actual institution of the sacramental supper—
II. And—the nature of it, and who may rightfully attend upon it.
I. We are to consider the original and actual institution of the sacramental supper. It may not be improper or unuseful, just to notice here as we enter on this important subject, the names, by which this Ordinance of the New Testament dispensation, is commonly known. I now, in the entry, call this ordinance, an ordinance of the New Testament dispensation, because I hope to be able, in the subsequent reasonings, to prove it to be so, to every mind that has candour, and discernment, to see the force of arguments. It has been differently denominated, in the Christian Church, and by different communions of Christians. It has been called the holy Sacrament—the great Gospel feast—the Christian Passover—the holy supper—the Eucharist—the Communion—and the Lord’s supper. Among all these appellations, that by which it most commonly goes, among christians, is the Lord’s supper. In each of these names, there is a peculiar significance and propriety, as is justly observed in those numerous discourses, which have been published on this Gospel-ordinance. Pious and sensible tracts have been published by learned men and sound divines on the nature of this ordinance—the qualifications of the worthy recipients—the terms of admission to its blessed privileges—the due preparation for attending upon it—the graces to be exercised while attending it—the design of it—and the temper and conduct which become christians after rising from the holy table—as well as the danger and sin of an unworthy and irreverent approach to it.—There is, in holy scripture, most obviously, sufficient reason for these several names given to it. But we readily concede, the word sacrament is not in the New-Testament-writings. It signifies binding ourselves to the Lord by covenant-vows and promises. Whenever we participate of the sacrament of the supper, we solemnly covenant, engage, and promise visually to be the Lord’s; to believe his truths, to be faithful in his service, to perform the duties which he enjoins—and to take him for our only Saviour.—
It may also, once for all, be here remarked, that there are, among the various communions of christians, some circumstances relating to this Ordinance, which are not essential, but are left to the convenience, prudence, and situation of the followers of the Son of God. Such as the frequency with which it ought to be celebrated; the posture of the recipients;—the quantity of the Elements to be taken;—and several other less points, which indeed have caused much contention among pious christians, to the disgrace both of reason and religion. In all indifferent things, it is folly to contend. It is no where said how often the Lord’s Supper is to be solemnized—or whether in the morning or evening of the Sabbath-worship—or whether we shall sit—or stand—or kneel while we partake of the symbols of the body and blood of the Redeemer. These circumstances are perfectly immaterial. And how unhappy, that christians should ever interrupt the harmony of churches on account of them, or divide and separate from each other. But about what trifles, mere nothing, will men furiously quarrel! He who kneels at the holy table is as acceptable a worshipper, as he who sits or stands. God looks at the heart, and not at the outward appearance. A composed, decent, and respectful or reverential posture is becoming, and is required. And as often, as the body of the people, with whom we worship, deem it expedient to solemnize the holy ordinance of the supper, we should do it, even if our private opinions should happen to be different. All that Christian Churches are concerned about, is that their Communion-days or Sacramental seasons may not be too near each other, or too far distant, lest the good effects, which they are intended to accomplish, should be frustrated. These observations are made to reconcile unhappy differences in Churches—to prevent needless disputes—and to promote among all that love our Lord Jesus Christ, however distinguished by name or distant in place, union—love—charity—condescension—and mutual forbearance. I hope the glorious day will soon arrive when God’s people of the various denominations, will make the most of their union, and the least of their difference—and be in all essential things, of one mind, of one way: and will lay aside and be ashamed of their foolish attachment to, and intemperate zeal for mere circumstantial points, names, and forms. Happy are the persons or the church that can divest themselves of all party-views and prejudice—of all bigotry and narrow notions, and embrace all pious people, of whatever sect, in the arms of fraternal affection—loving those most, who appear to have most of the temper and holiness of the Gospel! Alas! what mischief to the best of all causes, that of Jesus of Nazareth, hath bigotry done in every age, and every land, where his name has been known!
But the principle design of the present discourse is to prove, from scripture, the reality of such an ordinance, as we call the sacrament of the supper. Is there, then, such an ordinance, in the Christian Church, to be observed by all the followers and disciples of our Lord, in every age and country? If there be not, we are, in our attendance upon it, justly chargeable with adopting human inventions and corruptions. Consequently are guilty of will-worship or superstition. We go beyond what is required of us. We cannot, of course, hope, upon reasonable grounds, for the divine acceptance and approbation. For God is never honored by, or pleased with our religious observances, however seemingly devout or pious we may be, when we presume to offer him, either what he hath not required of us by plain instructions of his own word, or made known to us by the dictates of reason: or when we offer it in the way, which he hath not required. We are to admit as articles of faith all that he hath enjoined, and only what he hath enjoined, and no more. In our practice, as professed christians, we are to do precisely as he hath commanded us. To believe as he tells us, and to do as he bids us, is the chief of religion. As professed followers of the Redeemer of the world, we are to walk in all the ordinances and commandments of the Lord blameless. On the subject of positive duties we are to be guided, in our inquiries, altogether by the revealed will of him, who appoints them.
Laying aside all prepossessions from education, tradition, or other sources, let us candidly and critically enquire, whether Jesus Christ did not, in the most positive and express manner, institute the sacrament of his supper, or a solemn commemoration of his passion and death by partaking of bread and wine set apart to be emblems of his body and blood. And it is not possible for any language to be plainer or easier to be comprehended, than the passage of scripture chosen for our present meditation. In it we have an account, concise, but full, of the original appointment. We have, in it, the history of the first Christian sacrament ever attended upon. The Jewish Passover is done away expressly, by him whom it typified, and who alone had authority to change or abrogate the whole Jewish system. He says, in so many words, that he abolishes it, and would never more attend it. He says, he sets up another and new ordinance, in its room, to be continued in his Gospel kingdom. He himself dispenses the Elements after consecrating them by prayer. His disciples partook of them. All the circumstances are minutely set down. Nay, he ordained, as king of Zion, as head over all things to his Church, that the commemoration of him, by material bread and wine, should be statedly observed to the end of the world, in his Church, for the important purposes of honouring him as a Saviour, and preserving warm in the heart, and perpetuating the memory of his sufferings, his dying love and rich grace. I will explain and illustrate this history of the institution of the Lord’s supper, in the following manner, and principally in the words of an approved expositor.
At the close of the paschal supper before the table was cleared, Jesus to show that he was thereby typified as the lamb of God who was to be sacrificed for us, took in his hand such bread as was in common use, and having set it apart for sacred service, by thanksgiving and prayer, he brake it and distributed it among his disciples, saying take eat; for I appoint this sacramental bread to be henceforth eaten as the memorial of my body’s being broken for your redemption by my sufferings and death; in like manner as the eating of the paschal Lamb was appointed to be a memorial for the preservation of Israel from the destroying angel, and of their deliverance out of Egypt.——After the same manner he likewise took the cup of such wine in his hand as they had at the paschal supper, and setting this apart by thanksgiving and prayer to sacramental use, delivered it to his disciples, saying to every one of them, drink of this: for I appoint this sacramental wine to be henceforth drunk by all my disciples as the representation and memorial of my blood’s being shed for the confirmation of the new covenant, and purchasing of all its blessings; and particularly for the forgiveness of the sins of vast multitudes, not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles, also, even of all that by faith receive the atonement.——
But I tell you that from this time forward I have done with drinking the juice of the grape in commemoration of Israel’s deliverance, and will have that Ordinance continued no longer than till the things it typified shall be fulfilled by a more glorious redemption in the Gospel-kingdom, which will take place after my resurrection, and will call for a new use of wine in the commemorative Ordinance which I have now instituted.——And when at the close they had sung an hymn or song of praise suited to the occasion, Christ knowing that the time of his being betrayed was just coming on, would not stay to be apprehended in the house, lest he should bring the Master of it, into trouble, nor in Jerusalem, lest he should occasion public tumults and outrages, but retired with his disciples to the Mount of Olives. Here is a minute and circumstantial account given us by the Evangelist Matthew, of the abrogation of the Jewish ordinance of the Passover, and the institution of the Christian Ordinance of the Lord’s supper. It is a plain and particular account, as much so, as can well be conceived. And of all the four Evangelists, it is often observed, Matthew is the most circumstantial and particular in giving us the memoirs of our blessed Lord’s life, discourses and conduct. St. Mark and St. Luke rehearse to us, in the same words, as nearly as may be, the original institution of the ordinance of the Supper, and the abolition of the paschal Supper, and of the continuance of the former in the room of the latter. The Evangelist Mark’s account is this. And as they did eat Jesus took bread and blessed and break it and gave to them and said, take eat this is my body.—And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said unto them this is the blood of the new Testament which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives. St. Luke’s account is of an exactly similar tenor, though the order be a little different. Saying with desire have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. For I say unto you I will not any more, eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup and gave thanks and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it and gave unto them saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying this cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you. No words can be more particular. All the three Evangelists exactly agree in their account. There is indeed a wonderful harmony in this, as in all their other accounts of the birth, life, doctrines, institutions, sufferings, and death of the son of God. They vary so much as is a full proof that they did not transcribe from each other—or pen their Gospels by previous concert:—and they harmonize so completely as to satisfy all candid minds, that they gave a true, and not a false or fictitious history. All these three Evangelists tell us that Jesus Christ, directly and expressly, abolished the ordinance of the Passover. And that he also in the Gospel-kingdom, or his Church, would have bread and wine used as an ordinance commemorative of his broken body and shed blood. He was very formal, as well as solemn and particular in this. He told his disciples what the bread was a sign or symbol of—his body broken: and what the cup was the sign or emblem of—his blood shed for the remission of sin.—All reasonable people will agree that his disciples, who were present and heard him, and partook of the consecrated bread and wine, understood him perfectly. But how did they understand him? If they did not comprehend his meaning, it was because he did not utter himself intelligibly, or they had not common capacities to take up his meaning.—How they understood him, their conduct explains to all who have eyes to see, and ears to hear. Did they ever more after this attend the paschal Ordinance, which had been so dear to the Jewish Church, from the day of its institution?—Did they not on the first day of the week, the Lord’s day, attend public worship, and solemnize the Lord’s Supper? They did. What did they do this for, if their Lord and Master had not ordered them to do it? Dared they, of their own accord, undertake to appoint an ordinance of worship? Their actions speak louder than words can do. In the Acts of the Apostles, we are told xx. Chapter—7. that the disciples and believers solemnized the ordinance of the Lord’s supper—on the Lord’s-day—the day of his resurrection, the first day of the week. And upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread Paul, preached unto them. This could not be common breaking of bread. No person, in his senses, can imagine the Apostles went about from house to house to do this. It could be no other, therefore, than the sacramental breaking of bread. It was on the first day of the week—the Christian Sabbath, or Lord’s day. They met for public worship. Paul preached to them. They had likewise public prayers. They assembled as we do, and as the Christian world ever since have done, on the Christian Sabbath to preach, to pray, and to solemnize the holy Ordinance of the Supper.—A still more minute account is given us of the various parts of pubic worship observed in the Apostolic days—ii. Chapter—41 and 42 verses—They gladly received the word, and were baptized, and continued steadfast in the Apostle’s doctrine and fellowship—and in breaking of bread and in prayers. They were steadfast. They gladly received the word—took a pleasure in hearing it—in being where it was preached. The ordinance of water-baptism was administered to them. The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper was celebrated and prayers were attended. They—that is, all the professed believers in Jesus Christ continued steadfast in the Apostle’s doctrine and fellowship.——It is then a fact incontrovertible, that in the primitive days of Christianity, the disciples all attended the divine ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper—public worship and prayers, on the first day of the week.
To put the matter beyond all doubt, we will see what St. Paul’s view of it was. He was the chief of the Apostles. An immediate revelation was given to him, and he was a wonderful and most successful instrument of spreading the glory of the Gospel—and by whom also a very considerable part of the New Testament was penned.—In his first Letter to the Church at Corinth, he gives us a very particular account of the original institution of the ordinance of the Lord’s supper—and expressly informs us that it is to be perpetuated in the christian Church till the end of the world—that is all christians are by it, to show forth the death of Christ till he come—come to judge the world, and to render to every man according to his deeds.—xi. Chapter—23–27—For I have received of the Lord, that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also, he took the cup when he had supped, saying this cup is the new Testament in my blood: this do ye as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come. That this is not common daily eating and drinking to support life—to satisfy hunger and thirst is evident to every person, who makes use of his reason in things of religion. Could the Apostle speak as he does, if he meant no more than our common meals? If he meant only common eating and drinking, must he not be insane to speak as he does? Is common eating and drinking a remembrance of Christ’s sufferings and death? If we eat and drink, at our common meals, without a pious and thankful heart, are we guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? Is our common eating and drinking, if not done in a holy manner, eating and drinking damnation to ourselves—not discerning the Lord’s body? Are we to wait, in partaking common nourishment, till we have examined ourselves? But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. The Apostle severely reproves the converts at Corinth for an unworthy, disorderly partaking of the Lord’s Supper, when they assembled for that purpose. He calls the ordinance, the Lord’s Supper. When ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. What the Lord’s Supper is, we know as well as we know the meaning of any word ever used: as well as we know what the Lord’s prayer means. The Lord’s Supper is not every meal or any partaking of any food, but a Supper that is particularly so—eminently so. If I were to call every prayer the Lord’s prayer—and every meal I made—or food I received, the Lord’s Supper, I should justly be looked upon, either as a wilful perverter of scripture, or insane.——