The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-04-05
For the Central Presbyterian.
Why Observe It?


BY REV. 7. D. wITHERsPooN, D. d.
An intelligent gentleman in converse
ton with me short time ago, said in an
swer to an appeal which l made to him
to become COMMUNICATE in the church.
You ministers make great ado about
coming to the communion table par
taking of the Lords Supper, etc., but 1
do not see anything either in Scripture
or In the nature of the ordinance that
makes 1T so important. Indeed, 1 doubt
very much whether it was intended to
be of permanent and binding obligation
upon Christian people, or was anything
more than a temporary symbolism for
those extraordinary times in which the
apostles lived, like the breaking of bread
from house to house, the community of
goods" etc.
And so it is that, ever and anon, these
old questions come up again that we have
supposed finally settled long ago. As it
may be presumed that there are others
who share in the views of my friend, a
few words as to the perpetual obligation,
and practical value of the sacrament may
not be amiss.
And first as to the permanent obliga-
ton, let us simply take the passage l Cor.
xi: 20-34, and the following conclusions
necessarily follow:
First. Twenty-seven years after the
death of Christ when this epistle was
written, the LORDS Supper" was a fixed
institution in the Church at Corinth, was
regularly observed, and partaken of by
all the members of the church Second.
Nha a 10 4 LII 1 II L I
delivered it. to them as church ordi-
nance, doubtless during his ministry of
year and half amongst them (Acts
xviii: IL ) several years before. Third.
So important was the ordinance that Paul
tells us he received it, as he did "his
gospel of which it was indeed a part,
by special revelation from heaven; d for
1 received of the Lord" etc. Fourth.
He had received it as an ordinance to be
perpetually observed until the second
coming of Christ, 81 till He come" Fifth.
So sacred was it, that its abuse by the
Corinthian church was thought deserving
OF the severest rebuke by the Apostle,
and was declared to expose the unworthy
communicate to the severest penalties.
.SIrth. Yet Notwithstanding its abuse,
and the painful consequences, the Apos-
tie does net excuse any one from its OBJ
9ervance but SAYS, Let a man examine
himself, and 50 let him eat of that bread
and drink of that cup" If there ever
could be circumstances under which the
communion might be dispensed with, they
would certainly be found in this state of
things at Corinth where the ordinance
mad been debased into a mere convivial
banquet; and yet even here, with all the
solemnity of his Apostolic authority, the
Apostle re-enjoins it, declares its perma-
nent obligation, and lays down the rules
Tor It's due and solemn observance.
How can it be possible then, to hold !
even for a moment, that the ordinance is |
not binding now and will not continue to
oe binding until the Lord comes? With
this new light thrown upon its original
institution, it is impossible to plead, as
some do, that, as the first communion was
administered only to the twelve, it was
only designed for them. And when we
remember that the breaking of bread"
60 which reference is so constantly made
IN the Book of Acts, was, as declared in
] Cor. K: 10, " the communion of the body
Of Christ, we may discard all thought
Of any temporary design or obligation.
We must hold that the command {" Do
this in remembrance of me" is lust as
binding upon us now as it was in the
days of the apostles.
If you ask then, "Why observe the
sacrament?' ] answer because our Lord
commands it. What need have I for
anything more? What right have I to
20 behind plain command and sit in
Judgment upon the reasonableness of it'll
If do this in one case, why not in an
other2 and what will then be the secur-
lty for the Observance Of any ordinance
at sil2 When our Lord says, Do this
aR remembrance Of me" 1 must do it
whether understand His reasons or not