Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

memorial is transformed into a sacrifice, and considered as invested with an inherent efficacy which the Spirit of God never taught.

As long as the Lord's Supper held that place in the church which Jesus Christ and his inspired apostles assigned to it, it was indeed a "feast of fat things." The pious, in the apostolic age, regarded this ordinance, not as a sacrifice; but as a memorial of one :-not as a talisman, which carried with it a charm to every communicant; but as a precious sign and pledge of spiritual blessings :-not as a mystery, fenced about with terror; but as a feast, to be enjoyed with gladness and thanksgiving. Then the disciples never thought of the bread and wine being transformed into the real body and blood of Him who sat at the head of the table, and invited them to eat and drink in remembrance of himself. They had been long accustomed to use bread and wine as symbols in the Passover; and as symbols they, no doubt, understood them to be used in the ordinance of the Supper. When the Saviour said to his disciples concerning the bread, This is my body, broken for you; and concerning the cup, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do in remembrance of me they, doubtless, understood him to institute a memorial, not only of his sufferings and death; but of HIMSELF;-of all that was glorious in his person ;-of all that was tender, interesting and constraining in his love ;-and of all that was precious in the benefits which he was about to purchase by his blood. And, accordingly, to this delightful memorial, his humble followers came, from time to time, cherishing a deep sense of their own unworthiness; looking to Christ as their righteousness and strength; glorying in his cross; and dedicating themselves anew to his most blessed service. There was then no dispute whether the Saviour was to be adored as a divine person, or whether he had offered himself up as a vicarious, atoning sacrifice for the sins of his people. All who were considered as Christians regarded Christ and his work, in this point of view, and approached the holy Supper as a memorial of him in this character;-as a badge of discipleship and as a means of drawing near to him, and receiving from him spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace. Then there were no controversies whether the bread ought to be leavened or unleavened; whether the wine ought to be mixed with water or not.The Christians of those days had more important subjects to discuss than mere circumstances and ceremonies. They were days of gospel simplicity and piety.

But it was not long before this simplicity gave place to human invention and corruption. And to these abuses, it is more than possible that the very piety of the early writers and preachers, might, in some instances, have led. Feeling the Lord's Sup

per to be a most precious ordinance, and a great privilege, they were accustomed to speak of it in strong language. This language, in about one hundred and fifty, or two hundred years after the apostles, falling in with a decline, both in knowledge and piety, began to be misunderstood and abused. The abuse of terms soon led to the perversion and misconception of things: until, at length, almost all traces of the true knowledge and impression of the Lord's Supper were banished from the minds of the great body of professing Christians.

The first departure from the simplicity of the gospel, on this subject, seems to have had a respect to the nature of the ordinance. The highly figurative and often overstrained language in which some of the early fathers spoke of it; the manner in which they expressed themselves concerning the sacramental bread and wine; concerning their consecration by prayer; and concerning the blessings to be expected in receiving these consecrated symbols, led their less pious, and more superstitious successors, to adopt the doctrine of an opus operatum, or inherent efficacy in the ordinance, in all cases in which it was regularly administered. One speaks of the Lord's Supper as "a most tremendous mystery;"-as "a dreadful solemnity;"-as "something terrible to angels ;"-as "a mystical table." Another speaks of it as "a table whose very utensils and coverings were not to be considered like things inanimate and void of sense; but as having an inherent sanctity, and to be worshipped, as having something of the same majesty with the body and blood of our Lord." After reading language of this kind, which may be found in a number of writers who were greatly distinguished in the fourth and fifth centuries, no one will wonder that the sacrifice of the mass, the elevation of the host, the folly of transubstantiated bread and wine, and the worse than folly of kneeling and adoring them, not long afterwards followed.

This progress in superstitious views, led to another step in grossly superstitious practice. As early as the fourth century, the Lord's Supper was administered not only to infants, but also to the dead. It began to be deemed so essential to salvation, that if any had not partaken of it while alive, the sacred elements were thrust into their mouths after death; and the people were persuaded that the efficacy of this use of the sacramental symbols was unfailing. There was, indeed, a connexion, and, if the expression may be used, a kind of miserable consistency, between this practice, and the doctrine of purgatory, and of prayers for the dead, which, about the same time, began to come into vogue.

There is no doubt that the posture in which the Lord's Supper was first administered and received, was a recumbent posture; that is, reclining on the left elbow, as the practice was at

common meals. This practice in eating began among the eastern nations, and was afterwards introduced among the Romans. It was chiefly used at their principal meal, called supper, which was, in fact, almost the only one that was conducted in a very formal, luxurious, and social manner. Their other meals were less formal, and were often taken sitting, or even standing. But the supper was always taken in the reclining posture. This posture, it is agreed on all hands, was the one in which our Lord and his apostles attended on the first dispensation of the Sacramental Supper. How long this practice was retained in the church, after the days of the apostles, we are not informed. In the second and third centuries, we find the standing posture in use in receiving this ordinance. It is quite certain, however, that kneeling at the Lord's Supper was altogether unknown in the primitive church; because, among other reasons, for several centuries after the first, we know that it was accounted unlawful to kneel at all on the Lord's day, as being a posture wholly unsuitable for a day of thanksgiving and rejoicing, and only proper for a day of fasting and humiliation. But when transubstantiation was brought into the church, about the eleventh or twelfth century, kneeling at the Lord's Table, or at the altar, as the language was, came in with it: and by all Protestants, when they rejected that error, kneeling ought also to have been laid aside. I say this, not with the smallest disposition to condemn those who think proper to kneel, in receiving the pledges of a Saviour's love. I have no doubt that many who conscientiously adopt this posture, are as far as ourselves from adoring the symbolical elements. But I make the statement, because there is no doubt of its historical verity; and also for the purpose of vindicating the practice of the Presbyterian Church, in reference to this point. I can truly say, Mr. Editor, that it has given me unfeigned pleasure to see Episcopalians and Methodists kneeling at Presbyterian communion tables; not because I had any doubt that the primitive posture was a different one; nor because I had any disposition to adopt their opinion or practice, with respect to this matter: but because I was gratified to see that real Christians who thought and acted differently about modes and forms, could yet cordially come together, and seal their love to each other, as well as to their Master, at his own table.

In the primitive, apostolic church, administering the Lord's Supper in private, to the sick, or those who found it inconvenient or impracticable to go to the place of public worship, seems to have been unknown. There is no trace of any such thing, that I have ever seen or heard, to be found. In the solemn assembly. ALONE, it would seem, were the memorials of the Saviour's death and love dispensed. In its very nature, as

a COMMUNION, it is a SOCIAL ordinance. But, as early as toward the close of the second century, we find evidence that superstitious notions on this subject, had begun to obtain currency in the church. Justin Martyr tells us, in his first Apology, that after the presiding minister or bishop, had set apart the bread and wine by prayer, the deacons distributed them to the communicants who were present, and carried them to those who were absent. Nay, in a century or two afterwards, we find that this miserable superstition had so awfully gained ground, that the sacramental symbols were not only sent, in small quantities, by ecclesiastics, to the members of churches who were absent, as it would appear, from any cause; but they began, after a while, to be sent to the sick, and to other absent persons, by laymen, and even by children, as carrying with them an infallible benefit. Thus we find Eusebius, from an Alexandrian ecclesiastic, relating the story of a certain old man, called Serapion, who, having apostatized in a time of severe persecution, was excluded from the communion of the church, to which he could not be restored, notwithstanding his earnest entreaties for that purpose. But, some time afterwards, being seized with a violent illness, of which he died, he sent one of his grandsons for a priest," who being sick, sent him the sacrament by a child." "He gave unto this youth," says Dionysius, of Alexandria, whom Eusebius quotes, "a little of the sacrament, directing that it should be moistened, and put into the old man's mouth, that he might the more easily swallow it. His grandchild being returned, he steeped it, and poured it into the sick man's mouth, who having, by little and little, let it down, presently gave up the ghost. It was even customary to take pieces of the consecrated bread, moistened with the wine, on long voyages and journeys, to be received at intervals, according to the caprice, or superstition, of the bearer; or to be imparted to others, as circumstances might dictate. From this the transition was natural and easy, and soon followed, to the practice of carrying a portion of the sacrament, as it was called, about the person, as a kind of amulet, to keep off evil, and applying it, in cases of wounds and diseases, as the most efficacious of all medicines. The bread and wine were frequently applied in the form of a plaster, in almost all kinds of disorders; and, before the close of the fifth century, some serious and eminent ecclesiastics began to talk of their efficacy, when properly applied, to give sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and even life to the dead. And for this purpose, they were sent every where, in small portions, and made the subjects of superstitious use in a thousand ways, some of them of the most ludicrous character, if the facts were not too humiliating to admit of ridicule.

[ocr errors]

It is a knowledge of the early and monstrous abuses, to which

this superstition led, as well as a persuasion that there is nothing in the Bible to give it the least countenance, that makes Presbyterians so reluctant to administer the Lord's Supper to the sick and dying in private. They suppose that every thing which tends to nourish superstition, is mischievous and criminal. They have no doubt that administering the Lord's 'Supper in private to those who are supposed to be near their end, will infallibly lead the common people to consider the ordinance as a kind of viaticum, or passport to heaven. They think, too, that the professions and promises made by persons who consider themselves as dangerously ill, are seldom to be relied upon; that there is hardly any monster so profligate as not to feel visitings of compunction, and a disposition to take refuge in some form of religion, when he supposes himself to be near death; and that, therefore, to administer the Lord's Supper to all persons in such circumstances, who desire it, would be to prostitute the most solemn ordinance of our holy religion. But if it is not to be administered to all, who, in such cases, desire it, who is to draw the line between those who ought to be indulged, and those who ought not? How hard, even in the most painfully suspicious cases, to withstand the entreaties of the dying patient himself, as well as the tears and solicitations of relatives and friends, perhaps equally ignorant, and unfit to judge? How much better to let that solemn transaction, which we commonly call making a public profession of religion, take place in circumstances more favourable to proper deliberation, and in which the individual himself, as well as those around him, may have more satisfactory evidence, that the step which he takes, is the result of cordial, affectionate choice, not of terror only!

But, it may be asked, are there no cases in which these objections ought to be yielded? What shall be done in the case of one who has had no convenient opportunity of making a profession of religion while in health; but who has become truly pious in his last illness, and earnestly desires to confess Christ before he leaves the world? Or, what shall be done in the case of one who has, for a considerable time, maintained an exemplary Christian profession; but who, having been long detained from the house of God by sickness, desires, once more, to enjoy the precious privilege of commemorating the dying love of his Saviour? Is it wrong to indulge him?-I answer; such cases, viewed by themselves, and apart from the general principles which ought to regulate ecclesiastical conduct, may appear to be attended with little difficulty, and to present a very plausible, and even strong plea. But, if we carry the symbols of the Saviour's broken body and shed blood to one, who expresses an earnest desire to repair the negligences of his former life, how can we forbear to carry it to all who express the same desire?

« PoprzedniaDalej »