Our Lord's Last Passover.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
To THE proposition that none but those who show their faith in Christ by obedience to God's law can rightfully partake of the Lord's Supper, it may be objected that, although Christ, who was its founder, had a right to bar whosoever he saw fit, his followers are not competent judges as to who is worthy and who is not; that they have no right to deprive any one of the privilege. It is claimed that such an act savors of bigotry, and is a mark of illiberality. To this we would reply, (1) That it is the Lord himself who sets the standard; his followers dare not go beyond him. (2) That the question of liberality or illiberality is not concerned in the case. One may be liberal with that which is his own, and may dispose of it as he pleases; but to take the same freedom with that which is another's would be sin. But the supper in question is "the Lord's Supper;" consequently no one but he can dispense its privileges. The word "illiberal," when used with reference to those who do not believe in communing with law-breakers, is sadly misapplied. (3) Those who do so cannot be said to deprive anybody of the privilege of communion. They simply refuse to commune with them for the obvious reason that communion with them is impossible. There is not perfect union and harmony. There cannot be while one keeps the law and the other persists in breaking it. "For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (4) No one decides as to another's fitness or unfitness; the individual does that for himself. If he professes to have faith in Christ and to love God's law, no one can have any right or wish to exclude him. He may be at heart a law-breaker, although correct in his profession; but of this no one can judge. God alone can read the heart. If the individual presumes to act the part of a hypocrite, the responsibility is his own. And (5) As to being deprived of the privilege of the Lord's Supper, we would reply, that it is very far from being a privilege to one who is unworthy. Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 11:19 that he who does not discern the Lord's body is an unworthy partaker. The phrase, "not discerning the Lord's body," means that the individual does not realize the nature and object of the ordinance. This would be the case if the person did not realize that Christ's blood was shed "for the remission of sins that are past," and that when we accept it in our case we virtually pledge ourselves to abstain from sin in the future; "to walk even as he walked." In short, if a person presumes upon the mercy of God, and thinks that the sacrifice of Christ renders any effort on his part unnecessary, he would certainly be unworthy. And Paul says that he who eats and drinks unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself. The ordinances of the gospel are duties to be performed, and not merely privileges to be enjoyed. But they are not duties that are enjoined upon all, irrespective of their condition. There are two kinds of duty—primary and secondary; and it is the non-performance of the first that makes necessary the performance of the second. It is every person's duty to keep the law of God. There is no individual who is free from this obligation. Had man never sinned, keeping the law of God would have been his whole duty. But all men have sinned, and now God commands all men everywhere to repent. Christ died that we might find forgiveness of our sins by repentance and faith in him, and we are called upon to show our faith by performing certain duties. But we are not called upon to do these duties without first having repented. Christ's teaching was, "Repent ye, and believe the gospel." Paul preached "Repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." This is the true order. And the repentance must be complete. We must keep the whole law. Keeping eight-tenths or nine-tenths of the law is not enough. As we have before remarked, then, there is no exclusiveness about the matter. Certain ones who do not render obedience to all the law of God, will say, Come, let us partake of communion together. We would be glad to do so, but how can there be communion when there is disagreement? When they say, Let us commune together, it is equivalent to saying, Let us show our union or agreement; let there be perfect harmony between us; and yet they refuse to agree. It is sometimes said: We will waive this point; we will not let our opinions interfere; we will agree to disagree. But an agreement to disagree is disagreement still, and brings no union. Besides it is not our opinion that separates us, but the commandment of God. But what if the person asking to commune does not understand all the law, but is walking up to all the light that he has? Then give him the further instruction that he needs. If he has been conscientiously walking in all the light that he had, he will thank God for further light, and will at once accept it. But what if he cannot see as you do, and is still honestly trying to do right? Then pray that his eyes may be opened. If he is really honest, God will not permit him to wander in darkness. But whether honest or dishonest, whether walking in the light or self-deceived, there can be no true communion where there is material disagreement. The Saviour prayed thus for his disciples: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." John 17:11. And in this prayer he included his whole church, for he said: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." Verses 20, 21. Christ, then, did not contemplate many churches, nor one church with the individual branches "each serving God in his own way," but an individual church, between the members of which the union should be as close as it was between him and the Father. And this union and harmony was not intended to be a union which should be brought about by an agreement to ignore certain doctrines of the word of God, for that would be union only in name. The prayer of the Lord Jesus was: "Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth." Christian union, therefore, can only exist where all believe and speak the same thing. The apostles continually urged this state of things upon those to whom they wrote. See Rom. 12:16; 15:5; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 2:2; 3:16; 1 Peter 3:8; etc. To say that it is impossible for all to see alike, is to impeach the wisdom of Christ and his inspired apostles. The exhortation of Paul in 1 Cor. 1:10 is peculiarly noteworthy: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no division among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same judgment." Nothing could indicate more perfect unity than this. All must have one mind and one judgment. And this state of things existed in the early church, as we learn from Acts 4:32. "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul." What has been done can be done; and this condition must necessarily exist among the true followers of Christ. There is another lesson that we may learn from the example of Christ on this occasion; one that all the followers of Christ should ever keep in mind, and which, if acted upon, would take the edge off from any such epithet as "exclusive" or "bigoted." It is this: Christ could not suffer Judas to commune with his loving followers, and yet he washes his feet. What an amazing instance of humility! The King of glory condescends to wash the feet of his betrayer, a vile wretch with whom he could have nothing in common. No word of harshness or reproach for his perfidy, but a manifestation of tenderness, as though he were his best friend. And after giving Judas this proof of his gentleness and humility, he gives him to understand that all his villany is known, and delicately requests him to do his work at once, that his presence may not mar the scene of harmony and love that should follow. E. J. W.