What are gospel terms of communion at the Lord's Table? I think the safest way of answering this question, is by an examination of those places in the N. T., Where the subject of communion at the Lord's Table is found. 1. Matt. 26:26, 27. "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave to the disciples, and said, take eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and thanks, and gave it to them, saying; Drink ye all of it." Mark 12,:22,23. is a Paralell.

Luke 22:19,20. is also Paralell, except there, it is said my body, which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me; and this cup is the N. T. in my blood.

These verses give the original institution of the communion. Had we nothing, subsequently, in the N. T. as to what appears to have been the understanding and practice of the Apostles in this matter, we must, I think, have come to the conclussion, that the only communicans, should be such baptized Disciples, who were ministers of the word, and that the admistrator should be the person presiding in their assembly. But I suppose, that these ministers of the word, received, at this time, their commission on this subject, and their practice and writtings, were to develope to us, the mind of the Lord on the same. 2. I proceed next to, Acts 2:41,42. Then they that gladly received the word xc The first question, that arises here, is does the phrase "breaking of bread," in the 42 vrs, mean the Lord's supper?

Last edit 6 months ago by Samara Cary



I think it does. 1th the same phrase is used in the 20th chap. 7 v: where evedently the Lord's supper is intended. 2nd. It is mentioned among religious services, baptisms, doctrine, fellowship, prayers.

The next question is, who were the communicans? Persons baptized + united into a gospel Church. Some of them, previously baptized and embodied; viz, the 120, who were of one accord, and met in one place. Acts 1:14. 2:1. and others, who, that day believed and where baptized and added, amonting to 3,000.

There can be no doubt, but this is the body, that is called the Church in the 47 v. of this chap. also in 5:33. [8]:1. And no consistant Baptist, I think, can deny, that it was a Baptist Church. Not, that it bore the name; but that it the had the doctrine + practice of re now maintained by the Regular Baptist Chhs.

2ndly. They steadfast in doctrine. That which the Apostles taught respecting Christ, and repentance, and faith and Baptism, they received, and receiving they united with them.

3rdly. Fellowship of the Apostles. Joint interest, partnership. They were such, that were, and continued to be in joint interest with the Apostles.—

4thly. Prayers. Not, merely, were they praying persons but they prayed togetheyr.


III. Acts 20:7. And on the first day of the week, when the disciples were came together to break bread xc.

1. Here are disciples. That they were such persons as had received the word gladly, and had been baptized, I presume, no Baptist will deny. See John 4:1. Acts 19:1-3.—

2. Nothing is said here, about, that these disciples constituting a chh. yet there can be little doubt, but they were the Chh. at Troas. I came to this conclussion, by comparing this passage with Acts 2:42. There, the communicans were persons denominated. the Chh. and who were in the estimation other, steadfast in doctrine and fellowship, as well as breaking of bread and prayers. It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose, that other communicans, in the Apostolic churches, were after the same pattern. ------------------------

IV. 1 Cor. 10:16,17. No question, but communion at the Lord's Table is, here, intended. The communicans are said to be one bread, one body. The question, are who are intended? Believers indiscriminately? No, is the answer of all parties. Who then?

Last edit 9 months ago by Samara Cary
Displaying all 2 pages