Communion thoughts

Front matter

COMMUNION THOUGHTS.

BY

S. G. BULFINCH,

Part I. The Lord's Supper

Value of Outward Forms ....

The Pledge of Christian Duty

Who is on the Lord's Side ?

Institution and Meaning of the Communion

Historical Importance of the Communion .

For whom is the Communion intended %

Reasons for attending the Communion

Lord ! I am not worthy

What is that to thee ? Follow thou me

Is it my Duty to partake of the Communion ?

PAGE

. 3

. 10

15 . 22

29 . 35

47 . 53

Part II. Our Saviour

Christ the Image of God 69

Christ our Brother 76

Christ our Example .87 s-

Vi CONTENTS.

Christ's Anticipations ...... 98

Christ in Gethsemane 108

The Arrest, Trial, and Crucifixion . . . 113

Part III. The Communicant

Self-Examination .123

Prayer after Self-Examination . . . . 128

Prayer before Communion 130

Prayer before Communion, in Prosperity . . 132 Prayer before Communion, in Adversity . . .134 Prayer before Communion, when privately administered in Sickness . .... 136 Passages of Scripture . . . . . .138

Part IV. The Christian's Walk

Instrumental and Active Duties . . . . 157

Part V. Meditations In Verse

"Behold the Man!" 179

Jesus before Pilate 182

The Crown of Thorns 184

" My God ! my God ! Why hast thou forsaken me ? w 186

The Mourners . 188

Mary and John, before the Resurrection . . .190

8 &

CONTENTS. vii

Zeal and Love .... . 193

The Penitent Thief . .... 195

Praying in the Name of Christ . . . . 197

Invitation 199

The Communion of Saints 201

Praise 203

-U n-

-k

Part I

u-

PAET I.

THE LORD'S SUPPER.

VALUE OF OUTWARD FORMS.

There exists, in the present age, an increasing indifference to outward forms in religion. Men have so long groaned under the bondage of observances, that a reaction has taken place. Becoming aware of the fact, that mere forms are not truth and right, men have begun to show a disposition to reject them altogether ; and numbers, viewing the Christian ordinances as mere forms, have so far undervalued them, as entirely to neglect participation in their important advantages.

A well-judging mind, however, will look with some degree of suspicion upon any thing so transient and uncertain as the spirit of the age. We must not suffer ourselves to be hurried along by the influence of the opinions which happen for the

g M

~u

THE LORD'S SUPPER.

time to be prevalent. We have the Scriptures before us, we have reason within us. Relying on these, and on the Divine blessing, let us decide whether we shall do well to discard or to neglect institutions which are hallowed, not only by the observance of eighteen centuries, but by the original appointment of our Saviour, and by the exercise of a most blessed and useful influence over those who engage in them aright.

Man is an intellectual, a spiritual being. But this spiritual being is also corporeal ; this intellectual being can receive impressions from an earthly source, only through the medium of the outward senses. Whatever is to be addressed to man, with the design to affect his conduct and character, must be adapted to both portions of his compound nature. It must be suited to influence his thoughts and feelings, but it cannot reach these except through the avenues of sight and hearing ; to these faculties, also, it must be adapted. Religion, though in itself a spiritual thing, cannot dispense with external means for its communication and development. Among these external means various services and ceremonies have from time to time been employed. One of them was sacrifice, so generally practised throughout the world in ancient times. Another was fasting, an outward exm-

& gg

VALUE OF OUTWARD FORMS. 5

pression of sorrow, designed to promote the feeling of self-condemnation from which that sorrow resulted. We may find another in that solemn music, which is employed among ourselves, as it has been for ages, to assist the devotional tendency of the mind. Nor are these the only external services. Preaching is external ; however it may be addressed to the intellect or the heart, it can reach these only through an outward sense. Prayer is external, — all prayer that is uttered in words. Nay, even that which, without utterance, assumes the form of words within the mind, partakes of the outward and of the ceremonial. The Society of Friends, carefully as they have endeavoured to avoid formalism, have not been able to dispense with forms. The assembling together is an outward form ; the signal for separation is given by a simple but expressive form ; and the solemn stillness of the assembly while engaged in worship is valued for precisely the same reason for which the Catholic values the rich music that accompanies and aids his aspirations.

Must we, then, on the ground that religion ought to be spiritual, give up at once all that is external, and, classing together the ancient sacrifice, the modern liturgy, and public and private prayers, of

whatever kind, resolve to be religious only in the 1 #

g u secret feelings of the heart ? Thus doing, we should act inconsistently with our nature, for we should forget its compound character. We are not exclusively spiritual beings. In us, dwelling in these material tabernacles, the secret feelings of the heart need prompting and encouragement by something external to themselves. We have, then, only one course left, worthy of our adoption. That course is, to make use of outward means, not as though religion consisted in them, but that we may become more successful in the attainment of our ultimate object, the true religious character.

U ft

THE PLEDGE OF CHRISTIAN DUTY.

We have witnessed, of late years, a surprising movement in the community on a subject of moral reform. The progress of intemperance, which had produced the most fearful ravages in our own and in other lands, has been arrested. Thousands have been rescued, who, but for this movement, would have gone down to a dishonored grave. The means for the accomplishment of this great good was simple. It was a pledge, a bond of union. It was the practical adoption of the idea, that those who had firmness enough for the purpose should come out and profess themselves friends of temperance, — friends of temperance in opinion, and resolved to be friends of temperance in practice. What that pledge was to this branch of moral reform, is the communion of the Lord's Supper to Christianity. It is the pledge of belief and of obedience. It is the outward sign by

g _ M which the individual declares that he has taken his side in the struggle between good and evil in the world ; that he has chosen his place, humbly, indeed, but with calm faith and hope, at the feet of his Redeemer, and in the company of that Redeemer's followers.

If, then, we have seen — and who has not ? — the effect produced for the amelioration of character by the adoption of the pledge of temperance, may we not expect results corresponding in importance from the voluntary assumption of that which is the pledge of abstinence from all evil ? He who meets his fellow-Christians at the table of the Lord has, indeed, contracted no new obligations ; but he has avowed those which already existed, and has thus strengthened their influence over him. That which was innocent for him previously, is innocent still ; but he now feels that more is dependent on the correctness of his conduct than before. He is surrounded with a cloud of witnesses. The community at large, his brethren in the fellowship of Christ, his own aspirations of piety and resolutions of virtue, all warn him against remissness, and exhort him to perseverance. Let it not be said that the responsibleness is too heavy to be assumed. We scruple not, when called by circumstances to any station

THE PLEDGE OF CHRISTIAN DUTY. 9

which we are competent to fill, to pledge ourselves to the due performance of its duties. We intend to be faithful, and it occurs not to us that any danger is incurred by professing that intention. Why, then, if we intend to be faithful to God, and Christ, and our own souls, should we scruple to avow that intention by what our religion has made its appropriate pledge ? Why should we anticipate a desertion of duty which is far from our purpose, and against which the veiy profession we are called to make will aid in securing us ?

m-

WHO IS ON THE LOED'S SIDE?

We learn, from the account in the book of Exodus, that while the lawgiver of the Israelites was on the height of Sinai, holding sublime intercourse with the Almighty, the people, weary with the long tarrying of their leader, were urged by their impatience into crime. In imitation of the idolatry of their Egyptian masters, they made a calf of gold, and consecrated it as an emblem of Jehovah. They evidently had no thought of relinquishing the service of the Being who had brought them out of the land of Egypt, yet their worship of him, by means of this unworthy image, was in direct violation of the command he had given them, and was justly regarded as an act of treason and idolatry. They proclaimed a feast unto the Lord, and, assembling around the idol which their hands had made, they " sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play." In the midst of their presump-

u n

WHO IS ON THE LORD'S SIDE ? 11

tuous worship and indecorous mirth, Moses appeared, accompanied only by his attendant, Joshua, but in the strength of indomitable courage, of a holy purpose, and of conscious intercourse with God. Dashing from his hands, in the excitement of the moment, the sacred tables of the law which he bore, he commanded the instant destruction of the idol. But this was not enough. Far and wide around, he saw the people scattered in shameful revelry, exposed without defence to the sudden incursion of any enemy, and yet evidently disposed to resist his authority. " Who is on the Lord's side ? " he exclaimed ; "let him come unto me." Among the twelve tribes, only his own, that of Levi, gathered at the summons. He sent them forth, with a severity which the extent of the defection rendered necessaiy, to punish those who persevered in their idolatry ; but only by the death of three thousand of the rebels were the people reduced to penitence and submission.

" Who is on the Lord's side ? " That dread summons, which then rang through the disordered camp of Israel, is yet sounded forth. Who is on the Lord's side in the great strife between good and evil, between religion and irreligion, between virtue and vice ? There is a cause of God in the world now, as there was in the days of Moses.

As then the Almighty was, by the ministry of his prophet, leading his chosen people to the land of promise, and preparing them, by instruction and discipline, to receive and transmit to future ages his holy truth, so now is he, by the Gospel of his Son, Jesus Christ, leading the human race from the worse than Egyptian bondage of ignorance and vice, to the promised land of virtue, wisdom, and happiness, making ready for himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. Wherever there is a question for moral judgment, wherever there is a right and wrong, wherever any thing can be done for the good of a fellow-being, or any thing avoided by which a fellow-being may be injured, wherever faith encourages, or conscience warns, or temptation assails us, there is the cause of God at issue, there is the demand addressed to us, " Who is on the Lord's side ? " We are engaged in a warfare. Happier, indeed, than those of the tribe of Levi, who gathered at the call of Moses, the weapons of our warfare are not carnal ; we wrestle not with flesh and blood ; nor are we called to maintain the cause of God, as those in a ruder age, and under a less perfect dispensation, by deeds of sanguinary justice. No ; our great ministry is love. Our leader is he who went about doing good, and our task, to follow

WHO IS ON THE LORD'S SIDE ? 13

his example. With us, as Christians, the service of God and the service of our race are one and the same ; and he who is on the side of human rights and human happiness is on the Lord's side.

Are you on the Lord's side ? Have you pledged yourself to his service ? Are you doing all you can in his cause ? When the Israelites heard from the lips of Moses that stern demand, they knew that the duty required of them was not silence, not neutrality, but a prompt acknowledgment of their allegiance to the Almighty, and a faithful performance of that which he, through his prophet, might command them. The summons was in the name, and by the authority, of their God. It was made by his chosen prophet, and in his holy cause. It was for them to choose between obedience and rebellion. How stands the case with us ? Not Moses, but Christ, calls us to the service of the Lord ; and that service is not one of vengeance, but of love. Yet is the call less imperative ? Is it less our duty to be faithful Christians than it was that of the people in the days of Moses to be faithful Israelites ? How, then, if they were guilty who refused to make profession of their faith at the voice of Moses, shall they be held guiltless who refuse the 2 B 1 m

8 B profession of their faith in Christ ? It is by becoming members of the Christian Church that we take our stand, in the sight of God and man, on the side of Christian truth and Christian virtue, on the side of man's improvement and of God's commands.

U ■ S

-n

INSTITUTION AND MEANING OF THE COMMUNION.

The ordinance of the Lord's Supper derives its explanation from the circumstances under which it was instituted. Our Saviour, the night before he was crucified, was partaking with his disciples of the Passover, the feast appointed in commemoration of the great deliverance of the chosen people from the Egyptians. He availed himself of the occasion, — and a more suitable one could not have been chosen, — to institute another feast, commemorative of a greater deliverance. He took a portion of the bread which was before him, and, breaking it, compared it to his body, which was the next day to be broken on the cross. He then shared it among his disciples. He took a portion of the wine before him, and, pouring it forth, told his followers that thus his blood was to be poured forth. He passed the cup also around among them, and directed them to continue the custom in memory of him.

Such seems to be the plain account of the Christian communion. The bread and the wine are simply emblems of the Saviour's body and blood ; and our participation in them is intended to remind us of what our Lord endured for our sake. Many Christians believe that there is a mysterious meaning, beyond this, implied in the words of Jesus, " This is my body,'' and " This is my blood." But nothing was more common with our Saviour than to employ figurative language. When he said, " I am the vine," " I am the door of the sheep," we readily understand that he only meant to compare himself to those objects ; and it appears to us equally clear, that, when he said of the wine before him, " This is my blood," nothing more than a simple comparison was intended.

We are told respecting the three thousand who were converted on the day of Pentecost, soon after our Saviour's ascension, that " they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." We are further told, that they continued " daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house." Acts ii. 42, 46. It

u M

If— *

INSTITUTION AND MEANING. 17

seems from this, that, in the very earliest days of the Christian Church, whenever a number of the believers met together, they were accustomed to partake of bread and wine in memory of their Master. But if such was the custom, it was soon subjected to limitations. The first day of the week, the day hallowed by the resurrection and ascension of the Saviour, became the regular season for the religious meetings of his disciples ; and it appears that on that day they were accustomed to assemble for the especial purpose of commemorating their Master in this ordinance. This we may collect from the passage in Acts xx. 7, — " And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them."

We may reasonably suppose that, in the early churches generally, the religious design of this ordinance was kept in view, and the observance of it conducted in a reverential manner. In the luxurious city of Corinth, however, some abuses crept in, which drew from the Apostle Paul a severe rebuke.

Corinth was noted for wealth and dissoluteness ; and it is evident from the tenor of St. Paul's first epistle to the church in that place, that the infection of the manners prevalent around them had

2*

U-

H 3 found its way among the Christian community. The Corinthian disciples, when they came together on the Lord's day, were accustomed, like other Christians, to bring with them bread and wine for the rite commemorative of the Saviour. After the Apostle had left their city, the love of show and of indulgence prompted them, it appears, to contribute in this manner far more than was desirable for the emblematic purpose of the rite in which they were to engage. The simple feast of love was changed into a banquet. Probably the corruption was gradual ; and for some time the festival, though too luxurious for propriety, was shared equally by all, and with reference in the minds of all to the circumstances under which it was instituted. But at length those circumstances seem to have been forgotten ; the wealthy, who contributed largely to the banquet, rendered it in some instances an occasion of indecorous excess, while the poor were excluded from the table which they had not the means to assist in furnishing. This account of the celebration of the communion in a Christian church in the days of the Apostles may well surprise us ; but it is too well attested to be called in question. The abuse, with others which existed in the same community, attracted the notice of St. Paul. He wrote to them in the follow-

& k

INSTITUTION AND MEANING. 19

ing words : — " Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not, that ye come together, not for the better, but for the worse " ; — that your religious meetings are not suited for your improvement, but for your corruption. " When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper " ; — this is not the proper way of observing such an ordinance. " For in eating, every one taketh before other his own supper : and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What ! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in ? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not ? What shall I say to you ? Shall I praise you in this ? I praise you not." He then reminds them of the meaning of the ordinance, of which it seems they had so generally lost sight. He adds : — " For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." " Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry

8 g m ® one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home ; that ye come not together unto condemnation." 1 Cor. xi. 17 - 34.

The language of the Apostle explains itself. The strong terms in which he speaks of eating and drinking unworthily, have probably deterred many from joining in the communion, who should have felt that it was both their duty and their right. But on examination, we perceive that St. Paul referred with disapprobation, not to the conduct of any who reverently, and with a desire to honor their Master, comply with his command, but to an abuse which has not perhaps existed in the Church from the days of the Corinthians to the present time ; a total perversion of the ordinance, in forgetfulness of its meaning, to the purpose of mere sensual indulgence. This the Apostle rightly called " not discerning the Lord's body," — not distinguishing between the emblems of the Lord's body and the food used in common banquets ; and this was surely partaking unworthily. That this crime might be avoided, he bade the Corinthians to examine themselves, that they might know with what views and feelings they approached the table of the Lord.

This passage, therefore, does not exclude from Christian communion any one who reverences the

ft . U m : n

INSTITUTION AND MEANING. 21

Saviour, and understands that the Supper is administered in commemoration of him. The Apostle, however, in the same letter, gives directions to the Corinthian church to suspend from their fellowship a man who had committed a flagrant offence. 1 Cor. v. The order was obeyed, and the individual repented. The second epistle requests the church to forgive, and again receive the penitent among them. 2 Cor. ii. 5 - 10.

HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE COMMUNION.

The Lord's Supper is an historical memorial of important transactions, — a perpetual witness to the truth of the Christian religion. That we may judge of its value in this respect, we must take a brief view of the nature of such memorials.

Monuments and commemorations of past events have been in use among almost every people. These have mostly taken the form either of some remarkable structure, as a heap of stones, an altar, or a column ; or of some national observance, as a feast, or a pilgrimage.

The monumental structure bears witness through succeeding ages to the occasion on which it was erected, even if no inscription be engraved upon it ; because they who witnessed its erection hand down the memory of that event, and the transactions connected with it, to their children, and they

HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE. 23

to theirs, and these to still following generations. True, the traditional account may by time be blended with error ; but this is most likely to be the case in monuments of merely local interest. If we find substantially the same account given of any monument, the work of human hands, by the widely scattered descendants of those who witnessed its erection, we have strong reason to believe that this account is true.

A heap of stones, an altar, or a pillar, may crumble to decay. But the record engraven on the customs of a people cannot be destroyed, except by the destruction of the nation itself. As an instance of such a record, we may select our own observance of our national anniversary. Let it be supposed that our nation should relapse into the deepest barbarism, — arts, letters, sciences, being extinguished, but our observance of the national anniversary still continuing. In that case, a thousand years hence, that anniversaiy would still furnish the information of our revolutionary struggle. The people would always necessarily connect with it the tradition of the Declaration of Independence, and of the war during which it was made. If at any time an attempt should be made to trace the observance of the Fourth of July to some other origin, the people would answer, ignorant as they might be in other respects, — " The account you give of our national feast is new to us ; it cannot, therefore, be true. The account we give is that which has been handed down alike in all parts of our country, and has, therefore, evidently been the same through all ages since its origin. It therefore must be true."

We return now to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. The whole Christian world unite in receiving that ordinance as an institution of the Saviour, in which he distinctly foretold his own approaching death. In thousands of churches, throughout the world, among Oriental Christians, Catholics, and Protestants, the bread and wine are distributed, and accompanied with the words, " This is my body," u This is my blood," and " This do in remembrance of me." Ask the Christian of America, of Russia, or of Spain, to say by whom this rite was established ; and each will answer, By Jesus Christ. Nor does he gain his knowledge of this fact from books. It is from tradition. We all see the rite administered, or the preparations made for it in our churches, and receive a general idea of its purpose and origin before we are old enough to read intelligently the accounts in the Gospels. The ordinance has always been thus administered. This is the account

R -U

HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE. 25

which we all have received from our fathers, and they from theirs ; and it must, therefore, be true.

Could we, if we had never before heard of the Lord's Supper, or seen it administered, be induced by any assurances to believe that we had known and participated in such an ordinance, and had been familiar with it from our childhood ? And is it more probable that our ancestors, two or ten generations since, were thus deceived ? — that they could be made to believe that an altar which was raised in their very sight was a time-honored memorial-altar which they had known from infancy ? At what time w T as this mighty fraud effected ? History answers not. There is no trace in her records of any period, since the time of Christ, when an attempt was made to introduce, or to revive, the observance of the Supper. That observance, therefore, we conclude, has been held continually in the Christian Church, from the days of its Divine founder.

But could such an institution have been fraudulently introduced at a period soon after the death of the Saviour ? Could the Christian community, ten or twenty years after that event, have been persuaded that their Master in a solemn manner instituted this rite, if they had never heard of it

before ? Or, to go back the single step that re- 3 U U mains, could one of the Apostles have persuaded the rest that their Master had, in the presence of them all, established such an ordinance, when they had no remembrance of such a scene ? If not, the conclusion irresistibly follows, that the communion was instituted by Jesus of Nazareth the night before his death.

Let us now approach and read the inscription on this venerable altar ; — in other words, let us notice the language in which the Saviour established this ordinance. " Take, eat ; this is my body, which is broken for you : this do in remembrance of me." " This cup is the new testament [or covenant] in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. These words, in substance, are inseparable from the ordinance. It would be nothing without them. We know, therefore, that these words were uttered by Jesus before he was put to death. What does this prove ?

It proves that Jesus, while banqueting with his disciples, foretold his own violent death, and with so much certainty of the fulfilment of his prophecy, that he instituted an ordinance in memory of the event.

It proves that his prophecy was fulfilled, and that he was violently put to death. Otherwise, the

HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE. 27

observance of the rite among his followers would have been but mockery.

It proves that his death was voluntary ; for it shows that he knew his danger, and that, instead of taking measures to escape or to resist, he remained where it was certain to come upon him, foretold the result, and even rendered it necessaiy to his ow T n cause ; for he would have been proved a false prophet, if his enemies had not succeeded in their design against his life.

It proves that he acted from benevolent motives, and those of the most elevated kind ; for no others could be found to induce a man voluntarily to submit to a tormenting, and, as it was then regarded, a shameful death.

It proves, then, that he spoke what he believed to be the truth. Can we conceive of a man, whose whole life is one continued falsehood, becoming a voluntary martyr to the noblest principles of benevolence ?