Section II.
James Dodson
[p. 36]
SECT. II.
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE PRECEDING VIEW.
THE view given may serve to DISCRIMINATE the ordinance of the Supper from other institutions of the gospel, and what may be styled the common dispensation of grace.
It is one of God’s three witnesses*; and, as witnesses must always be distinct, though the testimony it bears be the same with that of the word and of baptism, it must be different from these two, either in the mode of testification, or in other respects. By the employment of sensible signs, both it and baptism are sufficiently distinguished from the ordinance of preaching. These two ordinances of symbols agree in being seals of the covenant-dispensation. Between them however the distinction is also sufficiently clear. It is strongly marked in their form and spiritual signification. In baptism something is done upon the recipient; he does not himself make use of the symbol. The ordinance is thus adapted to its use and import, as intended to denote regeneration, and to mark out the heirs of the promise whether adult or children. In the Lord’s Supper again, something farther is done by the recipient, expressive of voluntary and active profession. Baptism from its nature and import cannot be repeated; the observance of the Supper, as the grand ordinance of spiritual nutrition, ought to be frequent during the life of a saint. The vows too come under at the Lord’s table are peculiarly sacred and forcible. This arises from the manner and circum-
_____
* 1 John v. 8.
[p. 37]
stances in which they are made. In the baptismal dedication, our wills are not consulted, nor is it requisite they should, since our own consent is not necessary in regard to the obligations of duty*. Still, however, our own consent has great weight with the mind and conscience. What we would otherwise feel reluctant to perform, we do cheerfully, when we consider that we have voluntarily pledged our faith for it. This is a great obligation, for it is self-obligation. We are bound to be the Lord’s whether we vow or not, but if we have vowed, or made a profession of equal amount, we are doubly bound; and the more frequently we have done so, the more evidence is there of plenary consent. At the Lord’s table we, as it were, renounce all indifference about the matter,—which cannot properly be affirmed of our subjection to the other institutions.
At our entrance on the controversy relative to the observance of the Supper, the question occurs, “Ought it to be placed on a level with the other institutions of the gospel? Ought all the three witnessing ordinances to be conjoined in the stated and common dispensation of grace?” As to baptism an exception is made, and admitted on both sides. It can be dispensed only when subjects are found to re-
_____
* As the reference is here to Paedo-baptism, what is affirmed may be deemed objectionable. It should be remembered, however, that we are naturally under obligations, independent of our own will or choice. As creatures we are bound to serve and glorify God. Whether we will or not, we are bound to obey him. And in being born heirs of the promise, that is by relation to Christian parents, brought under the dispensation of the covenant, “I will be your God, and the God of your seed,” or, “In thee shall the families of the earth be blessed,”—we are born, not only to all the privileges, but also to all the duties of our holy profession.
[p. 38]
ceive it, and there must be no repetition. But the Supper, it is alledged, ought ever to be conjoined with the preaching of the gospel as a part of stated and ordinary service in the church. In support of this plan, attempts have been made to reduce it to a level with the usual dispensation of grace, as in no respect more solemn, nor to be discriminated from other institutions by any previous peculiar attentions. Particularly it is represented as bearing no such marks of speciality, as might indicate its being designed only for occasional observance.
A very different conclusion arises from the view presented in the preceding section. Let us again candidly survey the institution, nature, and use of the Supper. It will appear to be an ordinance that neither requires, nor can properly admit of any thing more than OCCASIONAL OBSERVANCE.
While it was honoured with an institution in various respects impressive and different from that of the other witnessing ordinances, it was, we have seen, appointed instead of the passover feast. But the passover was not a part of stated ordinary service in the Jewish church, and we have no indication from Jesus, that a difference was intended in this respect with regard to the Supper. To fulfil its ends in keeping up the remembrance of the death of Christ, or being a public sign that the atonement is made, and the promised state of privilege realized, there is no necessity for having the ordinance in constant dispensation. On the contrary, it is moved away from its proper sphere, and much of its impressive effect must be lost, if, instead of occasionally recalling to mind the glory of our gospel-state, and presenting to view the event to which all our privilege is owing, it shall be made one of the common external privileges
[p. 39]
of that state*.—Is it the sacred feast of the Christian church, and designed to realize, in visible exhibition, the whole gospel-dispensation, which is represented as a feast of fat things, or the marriage-supper of the Lamb? Then while that dispensation was manifestly intended for the stated spiritual entertainment of the people of God, the symbolical exhibition must surely have been meant for an extraordinary observance. To join it ever with the usual dispensation of grace, would seem greatly to supersede that “eating of the flesh, and drinking of the blood of the Son of man,” designed to be the permanent exercise of faith in hearing the word. Some difference was doubtless intended to be put between the constant public feast in the gospel and the sacramental feast, but that difference is much overlooked if both are placed on a level, or if the eating and drinking by symbols be not occasional.—We ought to bear in mind also that though the Supper be an high privilege in its nature, and references, yet the use of symbols is an accommodation to an imperfect state of the church. The symbols of the Mosaic economy were numerous, because the church was then in minority; those of the Christian state are few; but that any ap-
_____
* The case of the Sabbath may perhaps be objected. But the Sabbath is only the time of Christian worship, not an ordinance of worship, like the Supper. And if the seventh part of our time be claimed by God, it was proper that the day which anciently commemorated the creation, or the redemption from Egypt, and the Canaan-rest, should now bear a respect to God’s ultimate rest in the finished work of Christ, and to our rest with him in this life or hereafter. If however the Sabbath be the stated memorial of finished redemption, the Supper, on this very ground, must be a peculiar ordinance, intended but for occasional observance.
[p. 40]
pear is owing to the want of final perfection. As the shadow or profile hath vanished, the glass in which the very image is seen will also be removed; when that which is perfect is come, we shall see face to face. The ordinance of the Supper is thus, as far as the use of symbols is concerned, somewhat like a relic of God’s ancient method of training up his church. But to mark the comparative perfection of our state as the symbolical ordinances are few, so they were appointed the one instead of circumcision, which could be but once performed, and the other instead of the passover, an annual feast, an indication of their being intended only for occasional observance. Instead of all the other symbols and carnal ordinances of the law, we were to enjoy the simple preaching of the gospel, the plenary and unveiled dispensation of spiritual privilege*. But if, overlooking the design of occasional observance which coincides with the fewness of our symbolical ordinances, we make the Supper a part of stated service, do we not, as it were, multiply the tokens of imperfection, revert in so far to the legal state of things, and endeavour to introduce and establish in the Christian church, by that single ordinance, a permanent symbolical service? With
_____
* Hence in enumerating the witnesses on earth, John denominates the preaching of the gospel “the spirit,” 1 John v. 8. It is the spirit in opposition to “the letter,” the legal system and method of instruction, 2 Cor. iii. 6—8. But in the gospel-economy, it is appropriately “the spirit,” even in contradistinction to “the water and the blood,” baptism and the Supper, for in these along with the words which are “the spirit and life,” (John vi. 63.) there are material signs employed. But what is the preaching of the gospel, but the Holy Spirit simply, and without the intervention of any material emblems, testifying to us, dealing directly with our understandings to the full disclosure of the truth as it is in Jesus?
[p. 41]
what has just been stated, and which may seem to depreciate the Supper, its being an ordinance eminently calculated for the confirmation of our faith is no wise incompatible. The very grant of the use of sensible signs, considered as an accommodation to our imperfect state, contributes to this end, and particularly the grant of such signs as, differing from those of the law, proclaim the atonement to be past, and divine justice fully satisfied. But we cannot suppose that God would have his people constantly under the sensible pledges of his favour. He well knows that this, from the very operation of the infirmities he designed to counteract, would have a tendency to frustrate the end proposed, would render common and familiar, as other institutions, what he meant to have a striking and strongly confirming effect. Hence also, if we would consult the eminent promotion of grace which depends on this effect and for which the ordinance as adapted to that end is peculiarly calculated, we must obey its claim on occasional observance.—Attend we next to the service implied or performed in communicating, every one knows that vowing should be only an occasional exercise. So strong is the conviction of this, that the friends of stated weekly dispensation find it necessary to discard the idea of vowing wholly from the observance of the Supper*. But let us even hold by the
_____
* In some of their reasonings on this head, the ideas of vowing and swearing are confounded. A vow, however, is only a solemn promise to God. An oath may be added, but a vow does not necessarily imply an oath; nor is the idea of an oath to be attached to the Supper, considered as an ordinance of vowing. It neither exacts nor imposes an oath. It is styled a sacrament merely according to the primary and principal meaning of the term as denoting a peculiarly holy ordinance, Shorter Cat. Quest. 92.
[p. 42]
amount of the exercise and profession of communicants as declared by the apostle: That shewing of the death of Christ in which they engage, must be something of a very public nature. It is of all the acts of Christian worship, that in which the most open and explicit avowal of the cross of Christ is made. The failing must therefore be great in regard to the nature and object of this profession, if the Supper be not celebrated in the most public manner, if it be not distinguished by the mode and times of observance from the ordinary profession made every Sabbath in Christian worship.
Instead of following out this summary sketch in detailed argument, we may simplify the subject by stating three general conclusions from the nature and use of the ordinance, which ought to regulate in regard to observance. If the view formerly given be just, then the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance of great spiritual utility,—it is a most solemn ordinance,—and it is specially provided for manifesting the unity of the body of Christ.
I. It is an ordinance of GREAT SPIRITUAL UTILITY. This requires no particular proof; it is admitted on all hands. A copious and animated illustration of its importance to the Christian life may be found in Mr Mason’s second letter on communion. To this idea indeed the Author wisely confines his view of the ordinance. It is the only idea that can subserve the point he meant to establish.—But the Supper is also,
II. PECULIARLY SOLEMN. Of late, indeed, there has been much declamation, and even by some Presbyterians against accounting one ordinance more solemn than another. The arguments usually brought forward are, 1st, That the same authority is interposed in every divine institution; 2dly, That the object
[p. 43]
of worship is the same in all; And, 3dly, That in all there is the same spiritual reference, namely, to the mediation of Christ. The first of these arguments will prove, that every ordinance is entitled to respect in its own place, and that no one ought to be neglected in its proper season, nor observed at the expence of another. The second will prove that in no instance ought we to approach without reverence and godly fear: And the third, that there is no access to God but through Jesus Christ. What they prove in regard to comparative solemnity, (for all the ordinances of grace are solemn,) may appear from the following considerations:
1st, The discriminating marks of comparative solemnity are not touched in these arguments. They confessedly relate to what is common to all sacred institutions. It was incumbent on those who adduced them, to have proved that there could be nothing peculiar in regard to one ordinance more than another, or to have shewn that their arguments establish this point, and set aside the possibility of any thing peculiar.
2dly, If admitted to determine the question of comparative solemnity, the arguments specified will prove too much: They will prove that no peculiar solemnity could attach to any of the Old Testament institutions more than to any of the New. The same authority, for instance, was interposed, the same God was the object of worship, and the reference to the mediation of Christ was as real—in the daily sacrifice as in the passover feast. Will it be said it was the convocation of the people that rendered the last peculiarly solemn? Then, here is a circumstance different from any thing specified in the arguments; it is however only an extraneous circumstance, and one moreover which will scarcely be resorted to by the adversaries of comparative so-
[p. 44]
lemnity, who are no friends to solemn convocations. The arguments so confidently propaled, if admitted to decide the question would prove, that it is utterly impossible even with God to constitute one ordinance more solemn than another. But with God nothing is impossible, sin excepted, of which if he were capable he would be no God. And surely the ordination of comparative solemnity, though but in condescension to our weakness, is not like sin, contrary to his nature.
Therefore, 3dly, The discriminating marks of peculiar solemnity are to be sought in—the manner in which the divine authority has been interposed—the form in which the approach is to be made to the object of worship—and the mode of reference to Christ’s mediation, with other additional circumstances which may tend to impress the mind, or draw forth serious regard. As to the manner in which the divine authority has been interposed, it is nearly the same in regard to all the institutions of grace, lest any advantage should have been taken to neglect some and overrate others. Yet even on this head, the methods of divine wisdom for producing a peculiar effect may well engage our admiration. The authority that ordained and sanctioned sacrifice from the beginning was the same that appointed the legal modes of worship; but the manifestation of the grandeur of that authority on Sinai, when God descended with the sound of a trumpet, was awfully impressive. The command in regard to one institution may be more express, or the sanction may be more awful than in regard to another. It is of no consequence here, whether that sanction be given forth in so many words, or implied and notified to conscience in the very nature of the ordinance. In fine, God may
[p. 45]
more specially vindicate his authority with respect to one institution than another, and shew that in it particularly he will be sanctified of all them that draw nigh unto him. Apply these remarks to the Lord’s Supper, and consider—its immediate appointment by Jesus, and not when giving general directions about the kingdom of heaven; nor in the way of combining it with other ordinances, as he did baptism with teaching in one general mandate, but by itself;—the practical institution with which it was honoured;—the express command, “Do this in remembrance of me;” nothing similar to which took place in regard to the Sabbath, and various other articles of Christian order;—that too, his dying command, delivered in circumstances calculated to impress deeply on the heart the authority interposed;—the revelation of this ordinance afterwards from his state of glory to Paul, a revelation made in the very terms of first institution, and thus not only a new act of authority, but one manifestative of peculiar regard;—lastly, the awful sanction, 1 Cor. xi. 29. with the special vindication of the ordinance on such as had profaned it, ver. 30.
The object of worship is the same in all ordinances, but the manner of approach is not. On the very ground on which solemnity is considered as attaching to any act of worship, comparative solemnity may also exist. We are as really in the presence of God in the market as in the church, we have as really to do with him in the one place as in the other, and in regard to both, “all things are naked and opened to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” Shall we say then that to appear in the market and in the church are equally solemn? No; there is a drawing near, which must be done with true hearts. Ordinances are means by which, to use an unclassical but
[p. 46]
expressive word, we are sisted more directly in the presence of God. Now according to the same idea, they may be so constituted, that we shall be more deeply impressed with the awe of his presence in one than in another. And we find that God, regarding us as creatures who are liable to be thus impressed, has adapted the modes of worship to our state. He did so under the Mosaic economy. The approach made by the high priest when he entered the holiest, and by the people in him was more solemn, because more impressive in its manner and references, than the approaches made in the daily sacrifice. We find sensible signs still employed, and one ordinance in which a peculiar mode of worship is required, a mode not unsimilar to entering the holiest, and certainly the striking realization of the same thing in spiritual import*. Is there in the form of this ordinance no adaptation to our state, and our liableness to be impressed by what affects the senses? If not, God is Spirit, and might be worshipped in spirit without any such ordinance whatever. Combine with the form the signification of the Lord’s Supper, and it is an ordinance by which the idea of a near approach is more strongly impressed, than by any other. It is intended visibly to exhibit the realizing of our access to God through the flesh of Jesus, and our direct improvement of him as the way to the Father at the very time we are engaged in the act of worship.
This brings us to its peculiar reference to the mediation of Christ. The gospel is the preaching of the cross, but by this ordinance Jesus is evidently set forth crucified among us. While the whole doctrine of salvation must be by detail proclaimed in the gos-
_____
* Heb. ix. 7, 8. x. 19—22. 1 Pet. ii. 9.
[p. 47]
pel, here it is compendized; that grand event to which all is referable is exhibited after an uncommon manner, and as a past event. This is at once the summary of the New Testament in the blood of Jesus, and God’s method of sealing the covenant to the faith of communicants. If there was in the passover, as bearing on the mediation of Christ, something beyond the daily sacrifice and particular atonements of the law, then the same high reference is transferred to the ordinance of the Supper, and with it the characteristic solemnity of the ancient feast.
In addition to these observations we may note—the connection between the signs and the thing signified, which demands the most serious attention of the worshipper*, and the peculiar profession required and implied in partaking of the signs. Attendance on the gospel does not amount to a profession of saving faith, as partaking of the Supper must necessarily do.
_____
* According to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the bread and wine are the real body and blood of Christ. LUTHER, rejecting this doctrine, held that the body and blood of Christ are in, with, or under the symbols,—an opinion which he could never properly explain, which covers the ordinance with unintelligible mystery, and seems to linger on the borders of transubstantiation. ZUINGLIUS went to the opposite extreme, simplified too far. He held that the bread and wine are merely signs of something really absent, but by them figuratively present, as a king is said to be present by his ambassador who represents him. This idea is just, if by the body and blood of Christ, we understand his humanity. It is in heaven, it cannot be present in more places than one, and the heavens must retain him till the restitution of all things. But the body and blood of Christ mean, in Scripture, not his glorified humanity, but his death as an atonement, with all its blessed fruits. John vi. 51—63. CALVIN accordingly struck the medium, and with him, keeping by the scriptural meaning of the terms, we consider the Supper as an ordinance in which Christ crucified is really, though only spiritually, present in, or by the symbols employed.
[p. 48]
Much is implied in shewing the death of Christ beyond what can be implied in waiting on the ordinary dispensation of grace.
The simplicity of the New Testament worship so far from being unfriendly to the idea of comparative solemnity, must have a contrary effect. Under the law sensible signs were employed in almost every ordinance. This behoved to render the discrimination more difficult than now under the gospel, when they appear only in two instances. Sensible signs being so generally used in the Mosaic dispensation, many additional circumstances were requisite to mark with peculiar solemnity a few of the legal ordinances, whereas the very employment of these signs goes far for this end in a dispensation otherwise most simple. Thus more vivid tints and deeper shades are necessary to raise on the canvas an object amidst a group of similar objects, while the uniform azure of the heavens displays at once whatever appears in the sky. The compensations in the plan of divine wisdom are admirable.
III. The Lord’s Supper may be claimed as strictly a Presbyterian ordinance. What is meant by this epithet is, that according to our view of its nature and use, it must be considered as an ordinance designed to secure a permanent MANIFESTATION OF THE UNITY OF THE VISIBLE BODY OF CHRIST. On this conclusion much depends in regard to observance, both as to frequency and mode. It is a conclusion which natively follows from the specific ends we have found the ordinance appointed to serve: And it is a conclusion justified by various passages of Scripture where reference is made to the demonstration of unity as a general purpose intended.
[p. 49]
In the first place, the substitution of the Supper for the passover must forcibly occur to the mind. The passover was a feast of solemn convocation,—one of those in which by assembling the males of all Israel* at one place to join in solemn worship, God provided for a manifestation of the unity of his ancient church†. The plain substitution of the Supper, hath fixed upon it the same idea. It behoved to be regarded by the apostles as designed for the same purpose in the New Testament state. No caution to the contrary was given by Jesus. It may perhaps be objected that the passover was originally a kind of family observance. But in order to keep it, the tribes behoved to go up to Jerusalem. As soon as general association could form an active and purposed demonstration of unity, (which had been inexpedient, nay, impracticable in Egypt, and could not obtain in the wilderness where the tribes were necessarily together, and dwelling alone were sufficiently proved to be one body)—that association was ordained to take place in celebrating the passover feast. In correspondence to the design of this feast, it was so ordered that the family of Jesus with whom he first observed the Supper comprised the whole church; the apostles were the stamina and representatives of the New Testament church. Among them, Judas having then left their society, it was the sacred pledge of unity; and this public dispensation, for such it was from the character of the recipients, though their number was small, though they were met but in an upper room, and no spectators seem to
_____
* Females were not excluded, though the injunction was laid on the males. Luke ii. 41—44. In Christ there is neither male nor female.
† Deut. xvi. 1—8. 16.
[p. 50]
have been present,—this public dispensation might sufficiently indicate that the ordinance was, instead of that superseded, designed to be the pledge of unity among all who, through these founders of Christianity, should profess to believe on the name of Jesus.
But the Supper is evidently adapted for this purpose by its very nature and use. The communion of spiritual privilege is here visibly declared. There is also in the conduct of communicants a joint profession of adherence to their common Lord, and while this profession is made before the world, a mutual testification to each other of their fellowship in him. The ordinance is a feast, the holding of which is a token of friendship; it is the Lord’s table, where communicants sit down together as members of one family. It must therefore have been designed to furnish in its celebration, as far as the New Testament state would admit, a public and permanent display of the unity of the church.—Spiritual communion exists among believers every where and at all times, whether they join in the ordinance of the Supper or not. Whatever denomination they belong to, they have fellowship in the same title to eternal life, in the same righteousness on which that title is founded, and in the enjoyment of the same blessings, though the degree of enjoyment may vary and even be considerably affected by the peculiarities of their profession. Nay, so far as they all hold of the Head, to that extent and no farther, they have fellowship in the faith of the gospel, and in duty to Christ. But this is the fellowship of the invisible church. The ordinance of the Supper is calculated publicly to express the communion of saints, and to attest before God, angels, and men, their being of one mind and purpose in the Lord. So evidently is it adapted for testifying unity,
[p. 51]
and so clearly is this object involved in its nature, that, except the latitudinarian who seem to overlook its import, all parties have agreed to consider fellowship in this ordinance as the token of being of one mind, of being engaged in the same cause, and pertaining to one body. Independents themselves receive only independents to join with them, and thus, as far as their modes of procedure and government will admit, make association in the Supper a pledge of unity*.
Our conclusion is farther justified by various passages of Scripture where reference is made to Christian communion. The reasoning of the apostle, 1 Cor. x. deserves our attention on this head. He has two objects in view; first, to admonish the Corinthians against valuing themselves on the external privileges they enjoyed, and next to correct the abuse of Christian liberty which obtained among them. In pursuing both these objects we find a particular reference to the ordinance of the Supper, and to it as the intended and necessary pledge of unity. Effectually to expose the folly of resting in external privi-
_____
* There is but “one baptism.” Eph. iv. 5. If it can at all be accounted Christian baptism that the person has received, it is improper to repeat it on his joining another society. The spiritual import of the ordinance precludes repetition; and it is unnecessary, for whatever can be regarded as Christian baptism binds the person to espouse and adhere to the cause of Jesus in all its purity, “to observe all things whatsoever he has commanded.” In renouncing an impure communion therefore, the person is but fulfilling his baptismal obligation. The case is different as to the Lord’s Supper. In it there is an active testification of being of one mind, and pertaining to one body with those with whom we join. Its very nature in this light, as divisions were foreknown, would prevent it from being specified in the passage referred to; and hence its being omitted there does not militate against the general argument.
[p. 52]
leges, or boasting of these, the apostle reminds the Corinthians of what the Israelites enjoyed whose carcasses fell in the desert. They had ordinances similar to those of the Christian church, and even of an extraordinary kind; for, to give the greater pertinancy and force to his example, Paul wisely fixes, not on the ordinary sacraments, circumcision and the passover, but on two extraordinary, and which bear a striking resemblance to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These Fathers, he informs us, “were baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and they ate of spiritual meat.” He remarks that “they were all baptized,” they had one common baptism, and that “they did all eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink.” The direct purpose of these assertions was doubtless to remind the Corinthians that there was no exception;—those “with whom God was not pleased,” enjoyed the same privileges with the rest. But these assertions also pertain to the similarity between their privileges and those of the New Testament which the apostle meant to suggest, implying that he accounted both kinds manifestative of the unity of the church.—By his manner here, he accordingly paved the way for the reference he was about to make to the Supper on the second point, the abuse of Christian liberty. Some of the Corinthians who were strong, paid no regard to the consciences of the weak, and on the ground that an idol is nothing, did not scruple to feast with their heathen friends, and partake of food that had been previously devoted to one or other of the heathen gods. To correct this the apostle states, ver. 17. “We being many are one body and one bread, for we are all partakers of that one bread.” The reference is not to the permanent spiritual fellowship of saints
[p. 53]
which had availed little to his purpose, but to the testification of unity by visible communion in the Lord’s Supper. Hence the figure expressive of the unity meant, is borrowed from that ordinance, “we are one bread;” and the reason of affirming this unity is given in an appeal to what takes place in communicating, “for we are all partakers of that one bread.” The purport of the declaration is evident from the context; “I speak as unto wise men,” says the apostle, “judge ye what I say.” They were to judge that, as they manifested themselves to be one body, by joining together at the Lord’s table, they ought, first, to keep by themselves and avoid whatever might amount to fellowship with idolaters in their idolatrous practices; and, secondly, to shew deference to the consciences of the weak who were of the same body, whatever the strong, that is the really or opinionatively more enlightened, might think of certain associations with the heathen. See from ver. 16. to 33.
It may suffice at present to quote another passage, where a similar reference is made to the Supper in connection with baptism, 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13. “As the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many are one body, so also is Christ. For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have all been made to drink into one spirit.”