8/9/2019 Lord'Ssupper local chuches

1/2

The Lords Supper Observed by Local Churches by J. M. Pendleton- Page 1

THE LORDS SUPPER OBSERVED BYLOCAL CHURCHES

By J. M. PendletonPublished in the Berea Baptist Banner April 5, 1991.

The churches composed, as they are, of Christs bap-tized disciples meet for the worship of their Lord. Notforsaking the assembling of ourselves together isthe language addressed to Christians in apostolic times.Among the duties and the privileges of a congregationof baptized believers in Christ is included a commemo-ration of His death at His Table. Every local church isrequired to observe this ordinance. Its obligation to doso is inseparable from its independence; and the doc-trine of church independence will be developed in fu-ture sections of this chapter. The ordinances of the gos-pel are placed by Christ in the custody of His churches.They dare not change them in any respect; to changethem would be disloyalty to their Lord. They have nolegislative power; they are simply executive democra-cies required to carry into effect the will of their Head.Who but His churches can be expected to preserve theintegrity and the purity of the ordinances of the Lord

Jesus? These ordinances are to be kept as they weredelivered to the churches and received by them. This isindispensable to the maintenance of gospel order.

What Paul writes to the Corinthians (I Cor. 11:20-34)clearly indicates the necessity of coming together toeat the Lords Supper. True, he refers to certain ir-regularities, which he severally condemns; but when he

asks, Despise ye the church of God? he refers to itsmembers, not to their individual, but in their collective,capacitythe congregation of God. So, in verses 33,34,the words when ye come together to eat, tarry onefor another, and that ye come not together untocondemnation, show beyond doubt that the assem-bling of the church was requisite to the celebration ofthe Lords Supper. It is a church ordinance, and there-fore Baptists oppose any and every attempt to adminis-ter it privately to individuals without church sanction.

What was true of the Corinthian church as to the com-ing together of its members to commemorate the deathof Christ was doubtless true of all other churches of that

period. It would be absurd to suppose that there was acapricious diversity in the customs of the churches. Wemay therefore assume that there was uniformity.

With regard to the Lords Supper there are differentviews held by different religious denominations. RomanCatholics believe in what they call Transubstantiationthat is, that by the consecration of the priest, the breadand wine are changed into the real body and the realblood of Christ. This doctrine defies all reasonable cre-dence, and can be accepted only by a voracious credu-lity. It requires a renunciation of common sense to be-

lieve that when Jesus took bread into His hands, thatbread became His body; so that He held His body inHis hands! The statement of such a dogma is its suffi-cient exposure.

Lutherans, while they dissent from the Romish view,advocate what they call Consubstantiation. By this theymean that in the Lords Supper the body and the bloodof Christ are really present in the bread and the wine.While this view differs from the Romish, it is equallymysterious and scarcely less incredible; for it demandsthe impossible belief that the body of Christ is not onlypresent in many places on earth at the same time, but

that it is also in Heaven. Surely the body of Christ is notomnipresent.Episcopalians and Methodists, as well as Romanists

and Lutherans, receive kneeling the bread and the winein the Lords Supper. The posture is an unnatural one,and the custom of kneeling no doubt has an historicalconnection with Transubstantiationthat is to say, whenthe dogma was accepted as true, the bread and the winewere considered suitable objects of adoration. Hencethe kneeling attitude was assumed by Romanists, trans-mitted by them to Episcopalians, and from them inher-ited by Methodists. It is strange, in view of the idola-trous origin of the custom of kneeling, that it is contin-

ued by those who adjure idolatry.There is one thing in the service of Episcopalians andMethodists which must ever impress Baptists as verystrange: The minister, in delivering the bread to eachperson, says, The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, whichwas given for thee, preserve thy body and soul untoeverlasting life. In giving the cup he says, The bloodof our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, pre-serve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. This maynot be, but it seems to be, a prayer offered to the bodyand the blood of Christ, which are invoked to preserveunto everlasting life the body and the soul of the per-son addressed. Prayer to Christ is eminently proper, for

it is justified by the example of the dying Stephen; butprayer to the body and the blood of Christ is utterlyindefensible.

Presbyterians are nearer right in their views of theLords Supper than are the denominations to which Ihave referred. They do not kneel and they make promi-nent the commemorative feature of the ordinance. True,they call it a sealing ordinance; and these words Bap-tists vainly try to understand. What is sealed? The cov-enant of grace, they say. How is this? They say alsothat baptism seals it. Has it two seals? Among men

8/9/2019 Lord'Ssupper local chuches

2/2

The Lords Supper Observed by Local Churches by J. M. Pendleton- Page 2

Past Articles from the Berea Baptist Banner

covenants are invalid without seals. Is the covenant ofgrace invalid for purposes of salvation unless the sealsof baptism and the Lords Supper are appended to it?Presbyterians will hardly answer in the affirmative. Thetruth is the New Testament never refers to baptism andthe Lords Supper as sealing ordinances, and for thebest reason: It teaches that believers are sealed by theHoly Spirit unto the day of redemption. If the Holy

Spirit seals, there is security; and there is somethingwrong in the theology which makes baptism and theLords Supper sealing ordinances.

Baptists hold that, as the Lords Supper is a church-ordinance, the supreme prerequisite to it is church-mem-bership. Baptism, it is true, is often referred to as a pre-requisite, and so it is, but only in the sense that it is aprerequisite to church-membership. The members ofevery local church can claim it as a right to come to theLords Table in that church, but in no other. . . .This is amatter so plain that it is needless to dwell on it.

It sometimes creates a smile when it is said that Bap-tists are more liberal in their views and practice in re-gard to the Lords Supper than are any other people;but it is true. It is true in the sense that they believe thatall whom they baptize and receive into church-mem-bership are entitled to seats at the Lords Table; and it istrue in the sense that they welcome to that Table allwhom they baptize. They dare not sever from each otherthe two ordinances of the gospel. Of what other denomi-nation can this be said? I refer to the denominations ofProtestant Christendom. Among Episcopalians,Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists baptism andthe Lords Supper are put asunderthat is to say, this istrue of baptized children as distinguished from com-

municants. With Episcopalians and Lutherans thesebaptized children, so called, are kept from the LordsTable until they receive the rite of Confirmation. It isnot possible to give a good reason for this practice; forif through sponsors they are entitled to baptism, theyare also entitled to the Lords Supper. Presbyterians re-quire in the baptized children evidence of personalpiety before they are allowed to come to the LordsTable, and Methodists, to say the least, insist that thereshall be a desire to flee from the wrath to come. Theargument against inviting infants is that infants cannotdiscern the body and blood of the Lord Jesus. This isdoubtless true; but it is equally true that they cannot

discern the spiritual significance of baptism. If the in-ability to discern is a bar to the Lords Table, it shouldalso be a bar to the Lords baptism. There can be nogood reason for severing the ordinances of the gospel.Those who are entitled to baptism are entitled to theLords Supper. There is an interference with scripturalorder whenever the two ordinances are disjoined. Theinterference cannot be justified.

Baptists, therefore, say that the Lords Supper is notscripturally observed among Pedobaptists. They haveneither scriptural baptism nor scriptural church-mem-

bership, and there cannot be a scriptural administra-tion of the Lords Supper. In addition to this, they with-hold from a large numberperhaps a majorityof thosewho, in their judgment, are baptized the Lords Supper.This is a great inconsistency. It must be said, however,that if the ordinances were not sunderedthat is, if allbaptized by Pedobaptists were permitted to come to theLords Supperthe service would be vitiated by the pres-

ence of a majority composed of unbelievers and of thoseincapable of believing. In view of such considerationsas these, it will readily be seen why Baptists believe thatPedobaptists fail to observe the Lords Supper accord-ing to the New Testament, even as they fail to adminis-ter New Testament baptism.

On the other hand, it is a distinctive Baptist principlethat a scriptural church is a congregation of baptizedbelievers in Christ, whose duty and privilege it is to eatthe Lords Supper. All the members of such a churchare required to commemorate their Lords death. Theyare united to Him by faith in His name, and throughHim, by spiritual ties, to one another, while their bap-tism has incorporated them into one body, and theirpartaking ofone bread (I Cor. 10:17) is a symbol oftheir unity.

Baptists detach from the Lords Supper every idea ofTransubstantiation, Consubstantiation, ritual efficacy,sealing virtue, etc., and consider it a memorial of Christsdeath. Its commemorative office is that which consti-tutes its supreme distinction. Everything else connectedwith it is secondary and incidental. This do in remem-brance of me, said Jesus in instituting the ordinanceson the night of the betrayal. In the eating of the brokenbread He requires that His crucified body be remem-

bered; in the drinking of the cup He enjoins a remem-brance of His blood. That the faculty of memory is spe-cially exercised concerning the death of Christ in thesacred Supper is manifest from I Corinthians 11:26:Foras often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, yedo shew the Lords death till he come. We do notshow His birth or baptism or burial or resurrection orascension, but His death. If ever the tragedy of Calvaryshould engross the thoughts of the Christian to the ex-clusion of every other subject, it is when he sits at theTable of the Lord. Then memory must reproduce thescenes of the crucifixion and so hold them up to themind that Christ is evidently set forth crucified.

Then in the eating of the bread and the drinking of thecup the body and the blood of the Lord are spiritu-ally discerned, and the ordinance, by the presence ofthe Holy Spirit, becomes a rich blessing to the soul. Itbecomes the means of strengthening faith in Christ andof increasing love to Him; while memory goes back toHis death, and hope looks to His second coming, whenHis personal presence will supersede the necessity ofany symbol to promote a remembrance of Him.

(Distinctive Principles of Baptists, pp. 174-182, 1882 edi-tion).