THE following earnest letter of inquiry to the editor was recently received from a reader of the SIGNS, in Iowa:—
“To-night I have finished the second reading of your work, ‘Thoughts on Baptism,’ particularly that part relating to trine immersion. I bitterly opposed the Adventists here in Iowa, for nearly two years, but now I inquire of them. Baptism has been the hardest point to yield, so far. (I was a trine immersionist.) I have been looking up your references as far as I am able, and so far I have found them correct. I have compared yours and J. H. Moore’s tract, and as the light comes in, I believe more and more in single immersion. I believe your tract [pamphlet] will settle the difficulty with me. But there are other things that I do not yet understand.
“Why do not the Adventists observe the Lord’s Supper? as it is evident the Lord with his apostles partook of a full meal. John 13:4. And in 1 Cor. 11:20, Paul speaks of the Lord’s Supper, and if a hint of it, as Paul gives, shows that such a thing did exist, why are not the Dunkards right in partaking of a full meal? They (the Dunkards) also lay hands on the baptized, that they may receive the Holy Ghost. Acts 8:17. Why do not the Adventists do so?
“I write this verily for information and explanations of the scriptures referred to. Please don’t delay. I desire to be in harmony with Christ and his people before probation closes. Yours fraternally, in hope. J. J. E.”
THE LORD’S SUPPER.
Our brother is mistaken in supposing that Adventists do not celebrate the Lord’s Supper. We judge, however, that he does not regard the ceremony which we observe as being really the Lord’s Supper, because it is not an ordinary, regular meal. That the Lord’s Supper, as celebrated by Adventists, and Christian churches generally, is identical in form with that instituted by our Lord, and that to make it an ordinary meal is a perversion of the ordinance, can be easily demonstrated by the Bible, to the satisfaction, we think, of our inquiring brother.
1. It is true that Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, does speak of a full meal in connection with the Lord’s Supper, but only to condemn the practice. In this first epistle the apostle corrects many errors of the Corinthian church. After rebuking certain other unseemly practices, he takes up their manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, and says (1 Cor. 11:20, 21): “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry and another is drunken.” That is to say, “Although you profess to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, you do not do it in fact, because you eat and drink to satisfy the demands of appetite.” No stronger evidence than these two verses is needed to show that those who partake of a full meal under the impression that they are celebrating the Lord’s Supper, are grievously mistaken. In astonishment at their obtuseness, the apostle continues: “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the house of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.”
2. Although the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper was instituted on the night of the last Passover, it was entirely distinct from that meal. This is apparent from an examination of the records of the evangelists. Matthew says: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Chap. 26:26-28. Mark’s words are almost the same. Luke says (chap. 22:19, 20): “And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”
From these texts we learn (1) That it is only the bread and the wine that commemorate our Lord’s death; and (2) That these emblems were partaken of “after supper,” i. e., after the Passover meal. Both these points are very clearly made by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:23-26, after he had shown the Corinthians what the Lord’s Supper is not. We quote: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner, also he took the cup, when he had supped [literally, “after the eating of the evening meal”], saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord’s death till he come.”10This is too plain to be misunderstood. Paul did not depend upon hearsay for his evidence, but received it directly from the Lord himself. All that they were to do in remembrance of Christ, as showing forth his death till he should come, was to break and eat bread, and drink of the cup; and this memorial was instituted after the supper was over, and was entirely distinct from it. The Lord’s Supper consists simply in partaking of the bread and the wine, emblems of the broken body and spilled blood of Christ; whatever more is added is a perversion of the ordinance. Since the institution of the memorial was entirely distinct from the Passover Supper, and had no reference to it, there is no more reason for having the celebration of the Lord’s Supper preceded by a full, ordinary meal, than there would be for introducing it by the performance of some other act of Christ on that day.
More proof might be given on this subject, but it would seem that these Bible statements of what the Lord’s Supper is, and the declaration by Paul that the eating of a meal is not the Lord’s Supper, should be sufficient to settle the matter.
LAYING ON OF HANDS.
To the question why the Adventists do not lay hands on baptized persons, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, it would be sufficient reply to say that no such act is commanded. The gospel commission (Matt. 28:19, 20) says nothing of the laying on of hands, in addition to baptism; consequently we have no authority for such a custom.
More than this, we find that the Holy Ghost was not given in a fixed, arbitrary manner, even in the apostles’ time. In the case cited, and in Acts 19:6, we learn that the apostles laid hands on baptized persons, who then received the Holy Ghost; but in Acts 10:44, 45 we have an instance where the Holy Ghost fell on a room full of people who had not been baptized, and without the imposition of human hands; and in the case of the conversion and baptism of the eunuch (Acts 8:26-40), which is related with great minuteness, we have no intimation concerning any act of laying on of hands. When the apostles laid hands on those whom they baptized, it seems to have been in view of an especial work which they were to perform.
With these facts before us, and others that might be cited, we think that Adventists would be acting in a very presumptuous and unwarranted manner, if, in partial imitation of the apostles, they should lay hands on people in order that they might receive the Holy Ghost. E. J. W.