II. The Lord's Supper.The Lord's Supper is that outward rite in which the assembled church eats bread broken and drinks wine poured forth by its appointed representative, in token of its constant dependence on the once crucified, now risen Savior, as source of its spiritual life; or, in other words, in token of that abiding communion of Christ's death and resurrection through which the life begun in regeneration is sustained and perfected.Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 31, 33, says that the Scripture nowhere speaks of the wine as“poured forth”; and in1 Cor. 11:24—“my body which is broken for you,”the Revised Version omits the word“broken”; while on the other hand the Gospel according to John (19:36) calls especial attention to the fact that Christ's body wasnotbroken. We reply that Jesus, in giving his disciples the cup, did speak of his blood as“poured out”(Mark 14:24); and it was not the body, but“a bone of him,”which was not to be broken. Many ancient manuscripts add the word“broken”in1 Cor. 11:24. On the Lord's Supper in general, see Weston, in Madison Avenue Lectures, 183-195; Dagg, Church Order, 203-214.1. The Lord's Supper an ordinance instituted by Christ.(a) Christ appointed an outward rite to be observed by his disciples in remembrance of his death. It was to be observed after his death; only after his death could it completely fulfil its purpose as a feast of commemoration.Luke 22:19—“And be took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you”;1 Cor. 11:23-25—“For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”Observe that this communion was Christian communion before Christ's death, just as John's baptism was Christian baptism before Christ's death.(b) From the apostolic injunction with regard to its celebration in the church until Christ's second coming, we infer that it was the original intention of our Lord to institute a rite of perpetual and universal obligation.1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”As the paschal supper continued until Christ came the first time in the flesh, so the Lord's Supper is to continue until he comes the second time with all the power and glory of God.(c) The uniform practice of the N. T. churches, and the celebration of such a rite in subsequent ages by almost all churches professing to be[pg 960]Christian, is best explained upon the supposition that the Lord's Supper is an ordinance established by Christ himself.Acts 2:42—“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers”;46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart”—on the words here translated“at home”(κατ᾽ οἶκον), but meaning, as Jacob maintains,“from one worship-room to another,”see page961.Acts 20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”;1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who art many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”2. The Mode of administering the Lord's Supper.(a) The elements are bread and wine.Although the bread which Jesus broke at the institution of the ordinance was doubtless the unleavened bread of the Passover, there is nothing in the symbolism of the Lord's Supper which necessitates the Romanist use of the wafer. Although the wine which Jesus poured out was doubtless the ordinary fermented juice of the grape, there is nothing in the symbolism of the ordinance which forbids the use of unfermented juice of the grape,—obedience to the command“This do in remembrance of me”(Luke 22:19) requires only that we should use the“fruit of the vine”(Mat. 26:29).Huguenots and Roman Catholics, among Parkman's Pioneers of France in the New World, disputed whether the sacramental bread could be made of the meal of Indian corn. But it is only as food, that the bread is symbolic. Dried fish is used in Greenland. The bread only symbolizes Christ's life and the wine only symbolizes his death. Any food or drink may do the same. It therefore seems a very conscientious but unnecessary literalism, when Adoniram Judson (Life by his Son, 352) writes from Burma:“No wine to be procured in this place, on which account we are unable to meet with the other churches this day in partaking of the Lord's Supper.”For proof that Bible wines, like all other wines, are fermented, see Presb. Rev., 1881:80-114; 1882:78-108, 394-399, 586; Hovey, in Bap. Quar. Rev., April, 1887:152-180.Per contra, see Samson, Bible Wines. On the Scripture Law of Temperance, see Presb. Rev., 1882:287-324.(b) The communion is of both kinds,—that is, communicants are to partake both of the bread and of the wine.The Roman Catholic Church withholds the wine from the laity, although it considers the whole Christ to be present under each of the forms. Christ, however, says:“Drink ye all of it”(Mat. 26:27). To withhold the wine from any believer is disobedience to Christ, and is too easily understood as teaching that the laity have only a portion of the benefits of Christ's death. Calvin:“As to the bread, he simply said‘Take, eat.’Why does he expressly bid themalldrink? And why does Mark explicitly say that‘they all drank of it’(Mark 14:23)?”Bengel: Does not this suggest that, if communion in“one kind alone were sufficient, it is the cup which should be used? The Scripture thus speaks, foreseeing what Rome would do.”See Expositor's Greek Testament on1 Cor. 11:27. In the Greek Church the bread and wine are mingled and are administered to communicants, not to infants only but also to adults, with a spoon.(c) The partaking of these elements is of a festal nature.The Passover was festal in its nature. Gloom and sadness are foreign to the spirit of the Lord's Supper. The wine is the symbol of the death of Christ, but of that death by which we live. It reminds us that he drank the cup of suffering in order that we might drink the wine of joy. As the bread is broken to sustain our physical life, so Christ's body was broken by thorns and nails and spear to nourish our spiritual life.1 Cor. 11:29—“For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment onto himself, if he discern not the body.”Here the Authorized Version wrongly had“damnation”instead of“judgment.”Not eternal condemnation, but penal judgment in general, is meant. He who partakes“in an unworthy manner”(verse 27),i. e., in hypocrisy, or merely to satisfy bodily appetites, and not discerning the body of Christ of which the bread is the symbol (verse 29), draws down upon him God's judicial sentence. Of this judgment, the frequent sickness and death in the church at Corinth was a token. Seeverses 30-34, and Meyer's Com.; also[pg 961]Gould, in Am. Com. on1 Cor. 11:27—“unworthily”—“This is not to be understood as referring to the unworthiness of the person himself to partake, but to the unworthy manner of partaking.... The failure to recognize practically the symbolism of the elements, and hence the treatment of the Supper as a common meal, is just what the apostle has pointed out as the fault of the Corinthians, and it is what he characterizes as an unworthy eating and drinking.”The Christian therefore should not be deterred from participation in the Lord's Supper by any feeling of his personal unworthiness, so long as he trusts Christ and aims to obey him, for“All the fitness he requireth Is to feel our need of him.”(d) The communion is a festival of commemoration,—not simply bringing Christ to our remembrance, but making proclamation of his death to the world.1 Cor. 11:24, 26—“this do in remembrance of me.... For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.”As the Passover commemorated the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and as the Fourth of July commemorates our birth as a nation, so the Lord's Supper commemorates the birth of the church in Christ's death and resurrection. As a mother might bid her children meet over her grave and commemorate her, so Christ bids his people meet and remember him. But subjective remembrance is not its only aim. It is public proclamation also. Whether it brings perceptible blessing to us or not, it is to be observed as a means of confessing Christ, testifying our faith, and publishing the fact of his death to others.(e) It is to be celebrated by the assembled church. It is not a solitary observance on the part of individuals. No“showing forth”is possible except in company.Acts 20:7—“gathered together to break bread”;1 Cor. 11:18, 20, 22, 33, 34—“when ye come together in the church ... assemble yourselves together ... have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? ... when ye come together to eat.... If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment.”Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 191-194, claims that inActs 2:46—“breaking bread at home”—where we have οἶκος, not οἶκία, οἶκος is not a private house, but a“worship-room,”and that the phrase should be translated“breaking bread from one worship-room to another,”or“in various worship-rooms.”This meaning seems very apt inActs 5:42—“And every day, in the temple and at home[rather,‘in various worship-rooms’], they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ”;8:3—“But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house[rather,‘every worship-room’]and dragging men and women committed them to prison”;Rom. 16:5—“salute the church that is in their house[rather,‘in their worship-room’]”;Titus 1:11—“men who overthrow whole houses[rather,‘whole worship-rooms’],teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.”Per contra, however, see1 Cor. 11:34—“let him eat at home,”where οἶκος is contrasted with the place of meeting; so also1 Cor. 14:35andActs 20:20, where οἶκος seems to mean a private house.The celebration of the Lord's Supper in each family by itself is not recognized in the New Testament. Stanley, in Nineteenth Century, May, 1878, tells us that as infant communion is forbidden in the Western Church, and evening communion is forbidden by the Roman Church, so solitary communion is forbidden by the English Church, and death-bed communion by the Scottish Church. E. G. Robinson:“No single individual in the New Testament ever celebrates the Lord's Supper by himself.”Mrs. Browning recognized the essentially social nature of the ordinance, when she said that truth was like the bread at the Sacrament—to be passed on. In this the Supper gives us a type of the proper treatment of all the goods of life, both temporal and spiritual.Dr. Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, claims that the Lord's Supper is no more an exclusively church ordinance than is singing or prayer; that the command to observe it was addressed, not to an organized church, but only to individuals; that every meal in the home was to be a Lord's Supper, because Christ was remembered in it. But we reply that Paul's letter with regard to the abuses of the Lord's Supper was addressed, not to individuals, but to“the church of God which is at Corinth.”(1 Cor. 1:2). Paul reproves the Corinthians because in the Lord's Supper each ate without thought of others:“What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not?”(11:22). Each member having appeased his hunger at home, the members of the church“come together to eat”(11:30), as the spiritual body of Christ. All this shows that the celebration of the Lord's Supper was not an appendage to every ordinary meal.[pg 962]InActs 20:7—“upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”—the natural inference is that the Lord's Supper was a sacred rite, observed apart from any ordinary meal, and accompanied by religious instruction. Dr. Fox would go back of these later observances to the original command of our Lord. He would eliminate all that we do not find in Mark, the earliest gospel. But this would deprive us of the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Prodigal Son, and the discourses of the fourth gospel. McGiffert gives A. D. 52, as the date of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, and this ante-dates Mark's gospel by at least thirteen years. Paul's account of the Lord's Supper at Corinth is therefore an earlier authority than Mark.(f) The responsibility of seeing that the ordinance is properly administered rests with the church as a body; and the pastor is, in this matter, the proper representative and organ of the church. In cases of extreme exigency, however, as where the church has no pastor and no ordained minister can be secured, it is competent for the church to appoint one from its own number to administer the ordinance.1 Cor. 11:2, 23—“Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.... For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread.”Here the responsibility of administering the Lord's Supper is laid upon the body of believers.(g) The frequency with which the Lord's Supper is to be administered is not indicated either by the N. T. precept or by uniform N. T. example. We have instances both of its daily and of its weekly observance. With respect to this, as well as with respect to the accessories of the ordinance, the church is to exercise a sound discretion.Acts 2:46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home[or perhaps,‘in various worship-rooms’]”;20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.”In 1878, thirty-nine churches of the Establishment in London held daily communion; in two churches it was held twice each day. A few churches of the Baptist faith in England and America celebrate the Lord's Supper on each Lord's day. Carlstadt would celebrate the Lord's Supper only in companies of twelve, and held also that every bishop must marry. Reclining on couches, and meeting in the evening, are not commanded; and both, by their inconvenience, might in modern times counteract the design of the ordinance.3. The Symbolism of the Lord's Supper.The Lord's Supper sets forth, in general, the death of Christ as the sustaining power of the believer's life.A. Expansion of this statement.(a) It symbolizes the death of Christ for our sins.1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mark 14:24—“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many”—the blood upon which the covenant between God and Christ, and so between God and us who are one with Christ, from eternity past was based. The Lord's Supper reminds us of the covenant which ensures our salvation, and of the atonement upon which the covenant was based;cf.Heb. 13:20—“blood of an eternal covenant.”Alex. McLaren:“The suggestion of a violent death, implied in thedoublingof the symbols, by which the body is separated from that of the blood, and still further implied in thebreakingof the bread, is made prominent in the words in reference to the cup. It symbolizes the blood of Jesus which is‘shed.’That shed blood is covenant blood. By it the New Covenant, of which Jeremiah had prophesied, one article of which was,‘Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more,’is sealed and ratified, not for Israel only but for an indefinite‘many,’which is really equivalent to all. Could words more plainly declare that Christ's death was a sacrifice? Can we understand it, according to his own interpretation of it, unless we see in his words here a reference to his previous words (Mat. 20:28) and recognize that in shedding his blood[pg 963]‘for many,’he‘gave his life a ransom for many’? The Lord's Supper is the standing witness, voiced by Jesus himself, that he regarded his death as the very centre of his work, and that he regarded it not merely as a martyrdom, but as a sacrifice by which he put away sins forever. Those who reject that view of that death are sorely puzzled what to make of the Lord's Supper.”(b) It symbolizes our personal appropriation of the benefits of that death.1 Cor. 11:24—“This is my body, which is for you”;cf.1 Cor. 5:7—“Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”; or R. V.—“our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ”; here it is evident not only that the showing forth of the Lord's death is the primary meaning of the ordinance, but that our partaking of the benefits of that death is as clearly taught as the Israelites' deliverance was symbolized in the paschal supper.(c) It symbolizes the method of this appropriation, through union with Christ himself.1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the body of Christ?”Here“is it not a participation”=“does it not symbolize the participation?”SoMat. 26:26—“this is my body”=“this symbolizes my body.”(d) It symbolizes the continuous dependence of the believer for all spiritual life upon the once crucified, now living, Savior, to whom he is thus united.Cf.John 6:53—“Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves”—here is a statement, not with regard to the Lord's Supper, but with regard to spiritual union with Christ, which the Lord's Supper only symbolizes; see page965, (a). Like Baptism, the Lord's Supper presupposes and implies evangelical faith, especially faith in the Deity of Christ; not that all who partake of it realize its full meaning, but that this participation logically implies the five great truths of Christ's preëxistence, his supernatural birth, his vicarious atonement, his literal resurrection, and his living presence with his followers. Because Ralph Waldo Emerson perceived that the Lord's Supper implied Christ's omnipresence and deity, he would no longer celebrate it, and so broke with his church and with the ministry.(e) It symbolizes the sanctification of the Christian through a spiritual reproduction in him of the death and resurrection of the Lord.Rom. 8:10—“And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness”;Phil. 3:10—“that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death; if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead.”The bread of life nourishes; but it transforms me, not I it.(f) It symbolizes the consequent union of Christians in Christ, their head.1 Cor. 10:17—“seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”The Roman Catholic says that bread is the unity of many kernels, the wine the unity of many berries, and all are changed into the body of Christ. We can adopt the former part of the statement, without taking the latter. By being united to Christ, we become united to one another; and the Lord's Supper, as it symbolizes our common partaking of Christ, symbolizes also the consequent oneness of all in whom Christ dwells. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, IX—“As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, and being gathered together became one, so may thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom.”(g) It symbolizes the coming joy and perfection of the kingdom of God.Luke 22:18—“for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”;Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”Like Baptism, which points forward to the resurrection, the Lord's Supper is anticipatory[pg 964]also. It brings before us, not simply death, but life; not simply past sacrifice, but future glory. It points forward to the great festival,“the marriage supper of the Lamb”(Rev. 19:9). Dorner:“Then Christ will keep the Supper anew with us, and the hours of highest solemnity in this life are but a weak foretaste of the powers of the world to come.”See Madison Avenue Lectures, 176-216; The Lord's Supper, a Clerical Symposium, by Pressensé, Luthardt, and English Divines.B. Inferences from this statement.(a) The connection between the Lord's Supper and Baptism consists in this, that they both and equally are symbols of the death of Christ. In Baptism, we show forth the death of Christ as the procuring cause of our new birth into the kingdom of God. In the Lord's Supper, we show forth the death of Christ as the sustaining power of our spiritual life after it has once begun. In the one, we honor the sanctifying power of the death of Christ, as in the other we honor its regenerating power. Thus both are parts of one whole,—setting before us Christ's death for men in its two great purposes and results.If baptism symbolized purification only, there would be no point of connection between the two ordinances. Their common reference to the death of Christ binds the two together.(b) The Lord's Supper is to be often repeated,—as symbolizing Christ's constant nourishment of the soul, whose new birth was signified in Baptism.Yet too frequent repetition may induce superstitious confidence in the value of communion as a mere outward form.(c) The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, is the symbol of a previous state of grace. It has in itself no regenerating and no sanctifying power, but is the symbol by which the relation of the believer to Christ, his sanctifier, is vividly expressed and strongly confirmed.We derive more help from the Lord's Supper than from private prayer, simply because it is anexternalrite, impressing the sense as well as the intellect, celebrated in company with other believers whose faith and devotion help our own, and bringing before us the profoundest truths of Christianity—the death of Christ, and our union with Christ in that death.(d) The blessing received from participation is therefore dependent upon, and proportioned to, the faith of the communicant.In observing the Lord's Supper, we need to discern the body of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:29)—that is, to recognize the spiritual meaning of the ordinance, and the presence of Christ, who through his deputed representatives gives to us the emblems, and who nourishes and quickens our souls as these material things nourish and quicken the body. The faith which thus discerns Christ is the gift of the Holy Spirit.(e) The Lord's Supper expresses primarily the fellowship of the believer, not with his brethren, but with Christ, his Lord.The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, symbolizes fellowship with the brethren only as consequent upon, and incidental to, fellowship with Christ. Just as we are all baptized“into one body”(1 Cor. 12:13) only by being“baptized into Christ”(Rom. 6:3), so we commune with other believers in the Lord's Supper, only as we commune with Christ. Christ's words:“this do in remembrance of me”(1 Cor. 11:24), bid us think, not of our brethren, but of the Lord. Baptism is not a test of personal worthiness. Nor is the Lord's Supper a test of personal worthiness, either our own or that of others. It is not primarily an expression of Christian fellowship. Nowhere in the New Testament is it called a communion of Christians with one another. But it is called a communion of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16)—or, in other words, a participation in him. Hence there is not a single cup, but many:“divide it among yourselves”(Luke 22:17). Here is warrant for the individual[pg 965]communion-cup. Most churches use more than one cup: if more than one, why not many?1 Cor. 11:26—“as often as ye eat ... ye proclaim the Lord's death”—the Lord's Supper is a teaching ordinance, and is to be observed, not simply for the good that comes to the communicant and to his brethren, but for the sake of the witness which it gives to the world that the Christ who died for its sins now lives for its salvation. A. H. Ballard, in The Standard, Aug. 18, 1900, on1 Cor. 11:29—“eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body”—“He who eats and drinks, and does not discern that he is redeemed by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, eats and drinks a double condemnation, because he does not discern the redemption which is symbolized by the things which he eats and drinks. To turn his thought away from that sacrificial body to the company of disciples assembled is a grievous error—the error of all those who exalt the idea of fellowship or communion in the celebration of the ordinance.”The offence of a Christian brother, therefore, even if committed against myself, should not prevent me from remembering Christ and communing with the Savior. I could not commune at all, if I had to vouch for the Christian character of all who sat with me. This does not excuse the church from effort to purge its membership from unworthy participants; it simply declares that the church's failure to do this does not absolve any single member of it from his obligation to observe the Lord's Supper. See Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 285.
II. The Lord's Supper.The Lord's Supper is that outward rite in which the assembled church eats bread broken and drinks wine poured forth by its appointed representative, in token of its constant dependence on the once crucified, now risen Savior, as source of its spiritual life; or, in other words, in token of that abiding communion of Christ's death and resurrection through which the life begun in regeneration is sustained and perfected.Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 31, 33, says that the Scripture nowhere speaks of the wine as“poured forth”; and in1 Cor. 11:24—“my body which is broken for you,”the Revised Version omits the word“broken”; while on the other hand the Gospel according to John (19:36) calls especial attention to the fact that Christ's body wasnotbroken. We reply that Jesus, in giving his disciples the cup, did speak of his blood as“poured out”(Mark 14:24); and it was not the body, but“a bone of him,”which was not to be broken. Many ancient manuscripts add the word“broken”in1 Cor. 11:24. On the Lord's Supper in general, see Weston, in Madison Avenue Lectures, 183-195; Dagg, Church Order, 203-214.1. The Lord's Supper an ordinance instituted by Christ.(a) Christ appointed an outward rite to be observed by his disciples in remembrance of his death. It was to be observed after his death; only after his death could it completely fulfil its purpose as a feast of commemoration.Luke 22:19—“And be took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you”;1 Cor. 11:23-25—“For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”Observe that this communion was Christian communion before Christ's death, just as John's baptism was Christian baptism before Christ's death.(b) From the apostolic injunction with regard to its celebration in the church until Christ's second coming, we infer that it was the original intention of our Lord to institute a rite of perpetual and universal obligation.1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”As the paschal supper continued until Christ came the first time in the flesh, so the Lord's Supper is to continue until he comes the second time with all the power and glory of God.(c) The uniform practice of the N. T. churches, and the celebration of such a rite in subsequent ages by almost all churches professing to be[pg 960]Christian, is best explained upon the supposition that the Lord's Supper is an ordinance established by Christ himself.Acts 2:42—“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers”;46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart”—on the words here translated“at home”(κατ᾽ οἶκον), but meaning, as Jacob maintains,“from one worship-room to another,”see page961.Acts 20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”;1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who art many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”2. The Mode of administering the Lord's Supper.(a) The elements are bread and wine.Although the bread which Jesus broke at the institution of the ordinance was doubtless the unleavened bread of the Passover, there is nothing in the symbolism of the Lord's Supper which necessitates the Romanist use of the wafer. Although the wine which Jesus poured out was doubtless the ordinary fermented juice of the grape, there is nothing in the symbolism of the ordinance which forbids the use of unfermented juice of the grape,—obedience to the command“This do in remembrance of me”(Luke 22:19) requires only that we should use the“fruit of the vine”(Mat. 26:29).Huguenots and Roman Catholics, among Parkman's Pioneers of France in the New World, disputed whether the sacramental bread could be made of the meal of Indian corn. But it is only as food, that the bread is symbolic. Dried fish is used in Greenland. The bread only symbolizes Christ's life and the wine only symbolizes his death. Any food or drink may do the same. It therefore seems a very conscientious but unnecessary literalism, when Adoniram Judson (Life by his Son, 352) writes from Burma:“No wine to be procured in this place, on which account we are unable to meet with the other churches this day in partaking of the Lord's Supper.”For proof that Bible wines, like all other wines, are fermented, see Presb. Rev., 1881:80-114; 1882:78-108, 394-399, 586; Hovey, in Bap. Quar. Rev., April, 1887:152-180.Per contra, see Samson, Bible Wines. On the Scripture Law of Temperance, see Presb. Rev., 1882:287-324.(b) The communion is of both kinds,—that is, communicants are to partake both of the bread and of the wine.The Roman Catholic Church withholds the wine from the laity, although it considers the whole Christ to be present under each of the forms. Christ, however, says:“Drink ye all of it”(Mat. 26:27). To withhold the wine from any believer is disobedience to Christ, and is too easily understood as teaching that the laity have only a portion of the benefits of Christ's death. Calvin:“As to the bread, he simply said‘Take, eat.’Why does he expressly bid themalldrink? And why does Mark explicitly say that‘they all drank of it’(Mark 14:23)?”Bengel: Does not this suggest that, if communion in“one kind alone were sufficient, it is the cup which should be used? The Scripture thus speaks, foreseeing what Rome would do.”See Expositor's Greek Testament on1 Cor. 11:27. In the Greek Church the bread and wine are mingled and are administered to communicants, not to infants only but also to adults, with a spoon.(c) The partaking of these elements is of a festal nature.The Passover was festal in its nature. Gloom and sadness are foreign to the spirit of the Lord's Supper. The wine is the symbol of the death of Christ, but of that death by which we live. It reminds us that he drank the cup of suffering in order that we might drink the wine of joy. As the bread is broken to sustain our physical life, so Christ's body was broken by thorns and nails and spear to nourish our spiritual life.1 Cor. 11:29—“For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment onto himself, if he discern not the body.”Here the Authorized Version wrongly had“damnation”instead of“judgment.”Not eternal condemnation, but penal judgment in general, is meant. He who partakes“in an unworthy manner”(verse 27),i. e., in hypocrisy, or merely to satisfy bodily appetites, and not discerning the body of Christ of which the bread is the symbol (verse 29), draws down upon him God's judicial sentence. Of this judgment, the frequent sickness and death in the church at Corinth was a token. Seeverses 30-34, and Meyer's Com.; also[pg 961]Gould, in Am. Com. on1 Cor. 11:27—“unworthily”—“This is not to be understood as referring to the unworthiness of the person himself to partake, but to the unworthy manner of partaking.... The failure to recognize practically the symbolism of the elements, and hence the treatment of the Supper as a common meal, is just what the apostle has pointed out as the fault of the Corinthians, and it is what he characterizes as an unworthy eating and drinking.”The Christian therefore should not be deterred from participation in the Lord's Supper by any feeling of his personal unworthiness, so long as he trusts Christ and aims to obey him, for“All the fitness he requireth Is to feel our need of him.”(d) The communion is a festival of commemoration,—not simply bringing Christ to our remembrance, but making proclamation of his death to the world.1 Cor. 11:24, 26—“this do in remembrance of me.... For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.”As the Passover commemorated the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and as the Fourth of July commemorates our birth as a nation, so the Lord's Supper commemorates the birth of the church in Christ's death and resurrection. As a mother might bid her children meet over her grave and commemorate her, so Christ bids his people meet and remember him. But subjective remembrance is not its only aim. It is public proclamation also. Whether it brings perceptible blessing to us or not, it is to be observed as a means of confessing Christ, testifying our faith, and publishing the fact of his death to others.(e) It is to be celebrated by the assembled church. It is not a solitary observance on the part of individuals. No“showing forth”is possible except in company.Acts 20:7—“gathered together to break bread”;1 Cor. 11:18, 20, 22, 33, 34—“when ye come together in the church ... assemble yourselves together ... have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? ... when ye come together to eat.... If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment.”Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 191-194, claims that inActs 2:46—“breaking bread at home”—where we have οἶκος, not οἶκία, οἶκος is not a private house, but a“worship-room,”and that the phrase should be translated“breaking bread from one worship-room to another,”or“in various worship-rooms.”This meaning seems very apt inActs 5:42—“And every day, in the temple and at home[rather,‘in various worship-rooms’], they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ”;8:3—“But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house[rather,‘every worship-room’]and dragging men and women committed them to prison”;Rom. 16:5—“salute the church that is in their house[rather,‘in their worship-room’]”;Titus 1:11—“men who overthrow whole houses[rather,‘whole worship-rooms’],teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.”Per contra, however, see1 Cor. 11:34—“let him eat at home,”where οἶκος is contrasted with the place of meeting; so also1 Cor. 14:35andActs 20:20, where οἶκος seems to mean a private house.The celebration of the Lord's Supper in each family by itself is not recognized in the New Testament. Stanley, in Nineteenth Century, May, 1878, tells us that as infant communion is forbidden in the Western Church, and evening communion is forbidden by the Roman Church, so solitary communion is forbidden by the English Church, and death-bed communion by the Scottish Church. E. G. Robinson:“No single individual in the New Testament ever celebrates the Lord's Supper by himself.”Mrs. Browning recognized the essentially social nature of the ordinance, when she said that truth was like the bread at the Sacrament—to be passed on. In this the Supper gives us a type of the proper treatment of all the goods of life, both temporal and spiritual.Dr. Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, claims that the Lord's Supper is no more an exclusively church ordinance than is singing or prayer; that the command to observe it was addressed, not to an organized church, but only to individuals; that every meal in the home was to be a Lord's Supper, because Christ was remembered in it. But we reply that Paul's letter with regard to the abuses of the Lord's Supper was addressed, not to individuals, but to“the church of God which is at Corinth.”(1 Cor. 1:2). Paul reproves the Corinthians because in the Lord's Supper each ate without thought of others:“What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not?”(11:22). Each member having appeased his hunger at home, the members of the church“come together to eat”(11:30), as the spiritual body of Christ. All this shows that the celebration of the Lord's Supper was not an appendage to every ordinary meal.[pg 962]InActs 20:7—“upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”—the natural inference is that the Lord's Supper was a sacred rite, observed apart from any ordinary meal, and accompanied by religious instruction. Dr. Fox would go back of these later observances to the original command of our Lord. He would eliminate all that we do not find in Mark, the earliest gospel. But this would deprive us of the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Prodigal Son, and the discourses of the fourth gospel. McGiffert gives A. D. 52, as the date of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, and this ante-dates Mark's gospel by at least thirteen years. Paul's account of the Lord's Supper at Corinth is therefore an earlier authority than Mark.(f) The responsibility of seeing that the ordinance is properly administered rests with the church as a body; and the pastor is, in this matter, the proper representative and organ of the church. In cases of extreme exigency, however, as where the church has no pastor and no ordained minister can be secured, it is competent for the church to appoint one from its own number to administer the ordinance.1 Cor. 11:2, 23—“Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.... For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread.”Here the responsibility of administering the Lord's Supper is laid upon the body of believers.(g) The frequency with which the Lord's Supper is to be administered is not indicated either by the N. T. precept or by uniform N. T. example. We have instances both of its daily and of its weekly observance. With respect to this, as well as with respect to the accessories of the ordinance, the church is to exercise a sound discretion.Acts 2:46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home[or perhaps,‘in various worship-rooms’]”;20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.”In 1878, thirty-nine churches of the Establishment in London held daily communion; in two churches it was held twice each day. A few churches of the Baptist faith in England and America celebrate the Lord's Supper on each Lord's day. Carlstadt would celebrate the Lord's Supper only in companies of twelve, and held also that every bishop must marry. Reclining on couches, and meeting in the evening, are not commanded; and both, by their inconvenience, might in modern times counteract the design of the ordinance.3. The Symbolism of the Lord's Supper.The Lord's Supper sets forth, in general, the death of Christ as the sustaining power of the believer's life.A. Expansion of this statement.(a) It symbolizes the death of Christ for our sins.1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mark 14:24—“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many”—the blood upon which the covenant between God and Christ, and so between God and us who are one with Christ, from eternity past was based. The Lord's Supper reminds us of the covenant which ensures our salvation, and of the atonement upon which the covenant was based;cf.Heb. 13:20—“blood of an eternal covenant.”Alex. McLaren:“The suggestion of a violent death, implied in thedoublingof the symbols, by which the body is separated from that of the blood, and still further implied in thebreakingof the bread, is made prominent in the words in reference to the cup. It symbolizes the blood of Jesus which is‘shed.’That shed blood is covenant blood. By it the New Covenant, of which Jeremiah had prophesied, one article of which was,‘Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more,’is sealed and ratified, not for Israel only but for an indefinite‘many,’which is really equivalent to all. Could words more plainly declare that Christ's death was a sacrifice? Can we understand it, according to his own interpretation of it, unless we see in his words here a reference to his previous words (Mat. 20:28) and recognize that in shedding his blood[pg 963]‘for many,’he‘gave his life a ransom for many’? The Lord's Supper is the standing witness, voiced by Jesus himself, that he regarded his death as the very centre of his work, and that he regarded it not merely as a martyrdom, but as a sacrifice by which he put away sins forever. Those who reject that view of that death are sorely puzzled what to make of the Lord's Supper.”(b) It symbolizes our personal appropriation of the benefits of that death.1 Cor. 11:24—“This is my body, which is for you”;cf.1 Cor. 5:7—“Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”; or R. V.—“our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ”; here it is evident not only that the showing forth of the Lord's death is the primary meaning of the ordinance, but that our partaking of the benefits of that death is as clearly taught as the Israelites' deliverance was symbolized in the paschal supper.(c) It symbolizes the method of this appropriation, through union with Christ himself.1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the body of Christ?”Here“is it not a participation”=“does it not symbolize the participation?”SoMat. 26:26—“this is my body”=“this symbolizes my body.”(d) It symbolizes the continuous dependence of the believer for all spiritual life upon the once crucified, now living, Savior, to whom he is thus united.Cf.John 6:53—“Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves”—here is a statement, not with regard to the Lord's Supper, but with regard to spiritual union with Christ, which the Lord's Supper only symbolizes; see page965, (a). Like Baptism, the Lord's Supper presupposes and implies evangelical faith, especially faith in the Deity of Christ; not that all who partake of it realize its full meaning, but that this participation logically implies the five great truths of Christ's preëxistence, his supernatural birth, his vicarious atonement, his literal resurrection, and his living presence with his followers. Because Ralph Waldo Emerson perceived that the Lord's Supper implied Christ's omnipresence and deity, he would no longer celebrate it, and so broke with his church and with the ministry.(e) It symbolizes the sanctification of the Christian through a spiritual reproduction in him of the death and resurrection of the Lord.Rom. 8:10—“And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness”;Phil. 3:10—“that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death; if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead.”The bread of life nourishes; but it transforms me, not I it.(f) It symbolizes the consequent union of Christians in Christ, their head.1 Cor. 10:17—“seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”The Roman Catholic says that bread is the unity of many kernels, the wine the unity of many berries, and all are changed into the body of Christ. We can adopt the former part of the statement, without taking the latter. By being united to Christ, we become united to one another; and the Lord's Supper, as it symbolizes our common partaking of Christ, symbolizes also the consequent oneness of all in whom Christ dwells. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, IX—“As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, and being gathered together became one, so may thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom.”(g) It symbolizes the coming joy and perfection of the kingdom of God.Luke 22:18—“for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”;Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”Like Baptism, which points forward to the resurrection, the Lord's Supper is anticipatory[pg 964]also. It brings before us, not simply death, but life; not simply past sacrifice, but future glory. It points forward to the great festival,“the marriage supper of the Lamb”(Rev. 19:9). Dorner:“Then Christ will keep the Supper anew with us, and the hours of highest solemnity in this life are but a weak foretaste of the powers of the world to come.”See Madison Avenue Lectures, 176-216; The Lord's Supper, a Clerical Symposium, by Pressensé, Luthardt, and English Divines.B. Inferences from this statement.(a) The connection between the Lord's Supper and Baptism consists in this, that they both and equally are symbols of the death of Christ. In Baptism, we show forth the death of Christ as the procuring cause of our new birth into the kingdom of God. In the Lord's Supper, we show forth the death of Christ as the sustaining power of our spiritual life after it has once begun. In the one, we honor the sanctifying power of the death of Christ, as in the other we honor its regenerating power. Thus both are parts of one whole,—setting before us Christ's death for men in its two great purposes and results.If baptism symbolized purification only, there would be no point of connection between the two ordinances. Their common reference to the death of Christ binds the two together.(b) The Lord's Supper is to be often repeated,—as symbolizing Christ's constant nourishment of the soul, whose new birth was signified in Baptism.Yet too frequent repetition may induce superstitious confidence in the value of communion as a mere outward form.(c) The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, is the symbol of a previous state of grace. It has in itself no regenerating and no sanctifying power, but is the symbol by which the relation of the believer to Christ, his sanctifier, is vividly expressed and strongly confirmed.We derive more help from the Lord's Supper than from private prayer, simply because it is anexternalrite, impressing the sense as well as the intellect, celebrated in company with other believers whose faith and devotion help our own, and bringing before us the profoundest truths of Christianity—the death of Christ, and our union with Christ in that death.(d) The blessing received from participation is therefore dependent upon, and proportioned to, the faith of the communicant.In observing the Lord's Supper, we need to discern the body of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:29)—that is, to recognize the spiritual meaning of the ordinance, and the presence of Christ, who through his deputed representatives gives to us the emblems, and who nourishes and quickens our souls as these material things nourish and quicken the body. The faith which thus discerns Christ is the gift of the Holy Spirit.(e) The Lord's Supper expresses primarily the fellowship of the believer, not with his brethren, but with Christ, his Lord.The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, symbolizes fellowship with the brethren only as consequent upon, and incidental to, fellowship with Christ. Just as we are all baptized“into one body”(1 Cor. 12:13) only by being“baptized into Christ”(Rom. 6:3), so we commune with other believers in the Lord's Supper, only as we commune with Christ. Christ's words:“this do in remembrance of me”(1 Cor. 11:24), bid us think, not of our brethren, but of the Lord. Baptism is not a test of personal worthiness. Nor is the Lord's Supper a test of personal worthiness, either our own or that of others. It is not primarily an expression of Christian fellowship. Nowhere in the New Testament is it called a communion of Christians with one another. But it is called a communion of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16)—or, in other words, a participation in him. Hence there is not a single cup, but many:“divide it among yourselves”(Luke 22:17). Here is warrant for the individual[pg 965]communion-cup. Most churches use more than one cup: if more than one, why not many?1 Cor. 11:26—“as often as ye eat ... ye proclaim the Lord's death”—the Lord's Supper is a teaching ordinance, and is to be observed, not simply for the good that comes to the communicant and to his brethren, but for the sake of the witness which it gives to the world that the Christ who died for its sins now lives for its salvation. A. H. Ballard, in The Standard, Aug. 18, 1900, on1 Cor. 11:29—“eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body”—“He who eats and drinks, and does not discern that he is redeemed by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, eats and drinks a double condemnation, because he does not discern the redemption which is symbolized by the things which he eats and drinks. To turn his thought away from that sacrificial body to the company of disciples assembled is a grievous error—the error of all those who exalt the idea of fellowship or communion in the celebration of the ordinance.”The offence of a Christian brother, therefore, even if committed against myself, should not prevent me from remembering Christ and communing with the Savior. I could not commune at all, if I had to vouch for the Christian character of all who sat with me. This does not excuse the church from effort to purge its membership from unworthy participants; it simply declares that the church's failure to do this does not absolve any single member of it from his obligation to observe the Lord's Supper. See Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 285.
II. The Lord's Supper.The Lord's Supper is that outward rite in which the assembled church eats bread broken and drinks wine poured forth by its appointed representative, in token of its constant dependence on the once crucified, now risen Savior, as source of its spiritual life; or, in other words, in token of that abiding communion of Christ's death and resurrection through which the life begun in regeneration is sustained and perfected.Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 31, 33, says that the Scripture nowhere speaks of the wine as“poured forth”; and in1 Cor. 11:24—“my body which is broken for you,”the Revised Version omits the word“broken”; while on the other hand the Gospel according to John (19:36) calls especial attention to the fact that Christ's body wasnotbroken. We reply that Jesus, in giving his disciples the cup, did speak of his blood as“poured out”(Mark 14:24); and it was not the body, but“a bone of him,”which was not to be broken. Many ancient manuscripts add the word“broken”in1 Cor. 11:24. On the Lord's Supper in general, see Weston, in Madison Avenue Lectures, 183-195; Dagg, Church Order, 203-214.1. The Lord's Supper an ordinance instituted by Christ.(a) Christ appointed an outward rite to be observed by his disciples in remembrance of his death. It was to be observed after his death; only after his death could it completely fulfil its purpose as a feast of commemoration.Luke 22:19—“And be took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you”;1 Cor. 11:23-25—“For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”Observe that this communion was Christian communion before Christ's death, just as John's baptism was Christian baptism before Christ's death.(b) From the apostolic injunction with regard to its celebration in the church until Christ's second coming, we infer that it was the original intention of our Lord to institute a rite of perpetual and universal obligation.1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”As the paschal supper continued until Christ came the first time in the flesh, so the Lord's Supper is to continue until he comes the second time with all the power and glory of God.(c) The uniform practice of the N. T. churches, and the celebration of such a rite in subsequent ages by almost all churches professing to be[pg 960]Christian, is best explained upon the supposition that the Lord's Supper is an ordinance established by Christ himself.Acts 2:42—“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers”;46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart”—on the words here translated“at home”(κατ᾽ οἶκον), but meaning, as Jacob maintains,“from one worship-room to another,”see page961.Acts 20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”;1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who art many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”2. The Mode of administering the Lord's Supper.(a) The elements are bread and wine.Although the bread which Jesus broke at the institution of the ordinance was doubtless the unleavened bread of the Passover, there is nothing in the symbolism of the Lord's Supper which necessitates the Romanist use of the wafer. Although the wine which Jesus poured out was doubtless the ordinary fermented juice of the grape, there is nothing in the symbolism of the ordinance which forbids the use of unfermented juice of the grape,—obedience to the command“This do in remembrance of me”(Luke 22:19) requires only that we should use the“fruit of the vine”(Mat. 26:29).Huguenots and Roman Catholics, among Parkman's Pioneers of France in the New World, disputed whether the sacramental bread could be made of the meal of Indian corn. But it is only as food, that the bread is symbolic. Dried fish is used in Greenland. The bread only symbolizes Christ's life and the wine only symbolizes his death. Any food or drink may do the same. It therefore seems a very conscientious but unnecessary literalism, when Adoniram Judson (Life by his Son, 352) writes from Burma:“No wine to be procured in this place, on which account we are unable to meet with the other churches this day in partaking of the Lord's Supper.”For proof that Bible wines, like all other wines, are fermented, see Presb. Rev., 1881:80-114; 1882:78-108, 394-399, 586; Hovey, in Bap. Quar. Rev., April, 1887:152-180.Per contra, see Samson, Bible Wines. On the Scripture Law of Temperance, see Presb. Rev., 1882:287-324.(b) The communion is of both kinds,—that is, communicants are to partake both of the bread and of the wine.The Roman Catholic Church withholds the wine from the laity, although it considers the whole Christ to be present under each of the forms. Christ, however, says:“Drink ye all of it”(Mat. 26:27). To withhold the wine from any believer is disobedience to Christ, and is too easily understood as teaching that the laity have only a portion of the benefits of Christ's death. Calvin:“As to the bread, he simply said‘Take, eat.’Why does he expressly bid themalldrink? And why does Mark explicitly say that‘they all drank of it’(Mark 14:23)?”Bengel: Does not this suggest that, if communion in“one kind alone were sufficient, it is the cup which should be used? The Scripture thus speaks, foreseeing what Rome would do.”See Expositor's Greek Testament on1 Cor. 11:27. In the Greek Church the bread and wine are mingled and are administered to communicants, not to infants only but also to adults, with a spoon.(c) The partaking of these elements is of a festal nature.The Passover was festal in its nature. Gloom and sadness are foreign to the spirit of the Lord's Supper. The wine is the symbol of the death of Christ, but of that death by which we live. It reminds us that he drank the cup of suffering in order that we might drink the wine of joy. As the bread is broken to sustain our physical life, so Christ's body was broken by thorns and nails and spear to nourish our spiritual life.1 Cor. 11:29—“For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment onto himself, if he discern not the body.”Here the Authorized Version wrongly had“damnation”instead of“judgment.”Not eternal condemnation, but penal judgment in general, is meant. He who partakes“in an unworthy manner”(verse 27),i. e., in hypocrisy, or merely to satisfy bodily appetites, and not discerning the body of Christ of which the bread is the symbol (verse 29), draws down upon him God's judicial sentence. Of this judgment, the frequent sickness and death in the church at Corinth was a token. Seeverses 30-34, and Meyer's Com.; also[pg 961]Gould, in Am. Com. on1 Cor. 11:27—“unworthily”—“This is not to be understood as referring to the unworthiness of the person himself to partake, but to the unworthy manner of partaking.... The failure to recognize practically the symbolism of the elements, and hence the treatment of the Supper as a common meal, is just what the apostle has pointed out as the fault of the Corinthians, and it is what he characterizes as an unworthy eating and drinking.”The Christian therefore should not be deterred from participation in the Lord's Supper by any feeling of his personal unworthiness, so long as he trusts Christ and aims to obey him, for“All the fitness he requireth Is to feel our need of him.”(d) The communion is a festival of commemoration,—not simply bringing Christ to our remembrance, but making proclamation of his death to the world.1 Cor. 11:24, 26—“this do in remembrance of me.... For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.”As the Passover commemorated the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and as the Fourth of July commemorates our birth as a nation, so the Lord's Supper commemorates the birth of the church in Christ's death and resurrection. As a mother might bid her children meet over her grave and commemorate her, so Christ bids his people meet and remember him. But subjective remembrance is not its only aim. It is public proclamation also. Whether it brings perceptible blessing to us or not, it is to be observed as a means of confessing Christ, testifying our faith, and publishing the fact of his death to others.(e) It is to be celebrated by the assembled church. It is not a solitary observance on the part of individuals. No“showing forth”is possible except in company.Acts 20:7—“gathered together to break bread”;1 Cor. 11:18, 20, 22, 33, 34—“when ye come together in the church ... assemble yourselves together ... have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? ... when ye come together to eat.... If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment.”Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 191-194, claims that inActs 2:46—“breaking bread at home”—where we have οἶκος, not οἶκία, οἶκος is not a private house, but a“worship-room,”and that the phrase should be translated“breaking bread from one worship-room to another,”or“in various worship-rooms.”This meaning seems very apt inActs 5:42—“And every day, in the temple and at home[rather,‘in various worship-rooms’], they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ”;8:3—“But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house[rather,‘every worship-room’]and dragging men and women committed them to prison”;Rom. 16:5—“salute the church that is in their house[rather,‘in their worship-room’]”;Titus 1:11—“men who overthrow whole houses[rather,‘whole worship-rooms’],teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.”Per contra, however, see1 Cor. 11:34—“let him eat at home,”where οἶκος is contrasted with the place of meeting; so also1 Cor. 14:35andActs 20:20, where οἶκος seems to mean a private house.The celebration of the Lord's Supper in each family by itself is not recognized in the New Testament. Stanley, in Nineteenth Century, May, 1878, tells us that as infant communion is forbidden in the Western Church, and evening communion is forbidden by the Roman Church, so solitary communion is forbidden by the English Church, and death-bed communion by the Scottish Church. E. G. Robinson:“No single individual in the New Testament ever celebrates the Lord's Supper by himself.”Mrs. Browning recognized the essentially social nature of the ordinance, when she said that truth was like the bread at the Sacrament—to be passed on. In this the Supper gives us a type of the proper treatment of all the goods of life, both temporal and spiritual.Dr. Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, claims that the Lord's Supper is no more an exclusively church ordinance than is singing or prayer; that the command to observe it was addressed, not to an organized church, but only to individuals; that every meal in the home was to be a Lord's Supper, because Christ was remembered in it. But we reply that Paul's letter with regard to the abuses of the Lord's Supper was addressed, not to individuals, but to“the church of God which is at Corinth.”(1 Cor. 1:2). Paul reproves the Corinthians because in the Lord's Supper each ate without thought of others:“What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not?”(11:22). Each member having appeased his hunger at home, the members of the church“come together to eat”(11:30), as the spiritual body of Christ. All this shows that the celebration of the Lord's Supper was not an appendage to every ordinary meal.[pg 962]InActs 20:7—“upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”—the natural inference is that the Lord's Supper was a sacred rite, observed apart from any ordinary meal, and accompanied by religious instruction. Dr. Fox would go back of these later observances to the original command of our Lord. He would eliminate all that we do not find in Mark, the earliest gospel. But this would deprive us of the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Prodigal Son, and the discourses of the fourth gospel. McGiffert gives A. D. 52, as the date of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, and this ante-dates Mark's gospel by at least thirteen years. Paul's account of the Lord's Supper at Corinth is therefore an earlier authority than Mark.(f) The responsibility of seeing that the ordinance is properly administered rests with the church as a body; and the pastor is, in this matter, the proper representative and organ of the church. In cases of extreme exigency, however, as where the church has no pastor and no ordained minister can be secured, it is competent for the church to appoint one from its own number to administer the ordinance.1 Cor. 11:2, 23—“Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.... For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread.”Here the responsibility of administering the Lord's Supper is laid upon the body of believers.(g) The frequency with which the Lord's Supper is to be administered is not indicated either by the N. T. precept or by uniform N. T. example. We have instances both of its daily and of its weekly observance. With respect to this, as well as with respect to the accessories of the ordinance, the church is to exercise a sound discretion.Acts 2:46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home[or perhaps,‘in various worship-rooms’]”;20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.”In 1878, thirty-nine churches of the Establishment in London held daily communion; in two churches it was held twice each day. A few churches of the Baptist faith in England and America celebrate the Lord's Supper on each Lord's day. Carlstadt would celebrate the Lord's Supper only in companies of twelve, and held also that every bishop must marry. Reclining on couches, and meeting in the evening, are not commanded; and both, by their inconvenience, might in modern times counteract the design of the ordinance.3. The Symbolism of the Lord's Supper.The Lord's Supper sets forth, in general, the death of Christ as the sustaining power of the believer's life.A. Expansion of this statement.(a) It symbolizes the death of Christ for our sins.1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mark 14:24—“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many”—the blood upon which the covenant between God and Christ, and so between God and us who are one with Christ, from eternity past was based. The Lord's Supper reminds us of the covenant which ensures our salvation, and of the atonement upon which the covenant was based;cf.Heb. 13:20—“blood of an eternal covenant.”Alex. McLaren:“The suggestion of a violent death, implied in thedoublingof the symbols, by which the body is separated from that of the blood, and still further implied in thebreakingof the bread, is made prominent in the words in reference to the cup. It symbolizes the blood of Jesus which is‘shed.’That shed blood is covenant blood. By it the New Covenant, of which Jeremiah had prophesied, one article of which was,‘Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more,’is sealed and ratified, not for Israel only but for an indefinite‘many,’which is really equivalent to all. Could words more plainly declare that Christ's death was a sacrifice? Can we understand it, according to his own interpretation of it, unless we see in his words here a reference to his previous words (Mat. 20:28) and recognize that in shedding his blood[pg 963]‘for many,’he‘gave his life a ransom for many’? The Lord's Supper is the standing witness, voiced by Jesus himself, that he regarded his death as the very centre of his work, and that he regarded it not merely as a martyrdom, but as a sacrifice by which he put away sins forever. Those who reject that view of that death are sorely puzzled what to make of the Lord's Supper.”(b) It symbolizes our personal appropriation of the benefits of that death.1 Cor. 11:24—“This is my body, which is for you”;cf.1 Cor. 5:7—“Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”; or R. V.—“our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ”; here it is evident not only that the showing forth of the Lord's death is the primary meaning of the ordinance, but that our partaking of the benefits of that death is as clearly taught as the Israelites' deliverance was symbolized in the paschal supper.(c) It symbolizes the method of this appropriation, through union with Christ himself.1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the body of Christ?”Here“is it not a participation”=“does it not symbolize the participation?”SoMat. 26:26—“this is my body”=“this symbolizes my body.”(d) It symbolizes the continuous dependence of the believer for all spiritual life upon the once crucified, now living, Savior, to whom he is thus united.Cf.John 6:53—“Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves”—here is a statement, not with regard to the Lord's Supper, but with regard to spiritual union with Christ, which the Lord's Supper only symbolizes; see page965, (a). Like Baptism, the Lord's Supper presupposes and implies evangelical faith, especially faith in the Deity of Christ; not that all who partake of it realize its full meaning, but that this participation logically implies the five great truths of Christ's preëxistence, his supernatural birth, his vicarious atonement, his literal resurrection, and his living presence with his followers. Because Ralph Waldo Emerson perceived that the Lord's Supper implied Christ's omnipresence and deity, he would no longer celebrate it, and so broke with his church and with the ministry.(e) It symbolizes the sanctification of the Christian through a spiritual reproduction in him of the death and resurrection of the Lord.Rom. 8:10—“And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness”;Phil. 3:10—“that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death; if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead.”The bread of life nourishes; but it transforms me, not I it.(f) It symbolizes the consequent union of Christians in Christ, their head.1 Cor. 10:17—“seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”The Roman Catholic says that bread is the unity of many kernels, the wine the unity of many berries, and all are changed into the body of Christ. We can adopt the former part of the statement, without taking the latter. By being united to Christ, we become united to one another; and the Lord's Supper, as it symbolizes our common partaking of Christ, symbolizes also the consequent oneness of all in whom Christ dwells. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, IX—“As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, and being gathered together became one, so may thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom.”(g) It symbolizes the coming joy and perfection of the kingdom of God.Luke 22:18—“for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”;Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”Like Baptism, which points forward to the resurrection, the Lord's Supper is anticipatory[pg 964]also. It brings before us, not simply death, but life; not simply past sacrifice, but future glory. It points forward to the great festival,“the marriage supper of the Lamb”(Rev. 19:9). Dorner:“Then Christ will keep the Supper anew with us, and the hours of highest solemnity in this life are but a weak foretaste of the powers of the world to come.”See Madison Avenue Lectures, 176-216; The Lord's Supper, a Clerical Symposium, by Pressensé, Luthardt, and English Divines.B. Inferences from this statement.(a) The connection between the Lord's Supper and Baptism consists in this, that they both and equally are symbols of the death of Christ. In Baptism, we show forth the death of Christ as the procuring cause of our new birth into the kingdom of God. In the Lord's Supper, we show forth the death of Christ as the sustaining power of our spiritual life after it has once begun. In the one, we honor the sanctifying power of the death of Christ, as in the other we honor its regenerating power. Thus both are parts of one whole,—setting before us Christ's death for men in its two great purposes and results.If baptism symbolized purification only, there would be no point of connection between the two ordinances. Their common reference to the death of Christ binds the two together.(b) The Lord's Supper is to be often repeated,—as symbolizing Christ's constant nourishment of the soul, whose new birth was signified in Baptism.Yet too frequent repetition may induce superstitious confidence in the value of communion as a mere outward form.(c) The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, is the symbol of a previous state of grace. It has in itself no regenerating and no sanctifying power, but is the symbol by which the relation of the believer to Christ, his sanctifier, is vividly expressed and strongly confirmed.We derive more help from the Lord's Supper than from private prayer, simply because it is anexternalrite, impressing the sense as well as the intellect, celebrated in company with other believers whose faith and devotion help our own, and bringing before us the profoundest truths of Christianity—the death of Christ, and our union with Christ in that death.(d) The blessing received from participation is therefore dependent upon, and proportioned to, the faith of the communicant.In observing the Lord's Supper, we need to discern the body of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:29)—that is, to recognize the spiritual meaning of the ordinance, and the presence of Christ, who through his deputed representatives gives to us the emblems, and who nourishes and quickens our souls as these material things nourish and quicken the body. The faith which thus discerns Christ is the gift of the Holy Spirit.(e) The Lord's Supper expresses primarily the fellowship of the believer, not with his brethren, but with Christ, his Lord.The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, symbolizes fellowship with the brethren only as consequent upon, and incidental to, fellowship with Christ. Just as we are all baptized“into one body”(1 Cor. 12:13) only by being“baptized into Christ”(Rom. 6:3), so we commune with other believers in the Lord's Supper, only as we commune with Christ. Christ's words:“this do in remembrance of me”(1 Cor. 11:24), bid us think, not of our brethren, but of the Lord. Baptism is not a test of personal worthiness. Nor is the Lord's Supper a test of personal worthiness, either our own or that of others. It is not primarily an expression of Christian fellowship. Nowhere in the New Testament is it called a communion of Christians with one another. But it is called a communion of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16)—or, in other words, a participation in him. Hence there is not a single cup, but many:“divide it among yourselves”(Luke 22:17). Here is warrant for the individual[pg 965]communion-cup. Most churches use more than one cup: if more than one, why not many?1 Cor. 11:26—“as often as ye eat ... ye proclaim the Lord's death”—the Lord's Supper is a teaching ordinance, and is to be observed, not simply for the good that comes to the communicant and to his brethren, but for the sake of the witness which it gives to the world that the Christ who died for its sins now lives for its salvation. A. H. Ballard, in The Standard, Aug. 18, 1900, on1 Cor. 11:29—“eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body”—“He who eats and drinks, and does not discern that he is redeemed by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, eats and drinks a double condemnation, because he does not discern the redemption which is symbolized by the things which he eats and drinks. To turn his thought away from that sacrificial body to the company of disciples assembled is a grievous error—the error of all those who exalt the idea of fellowship or communion in the celebration of the ordinance.”The offence of a Christian brother, therefore, even if committed against myself, should not prevent me from remembering Christ and communing with the Savior. I could not commune at all, if I had to vouch for the Christian character of all who sat with me. This does not excuse the church from effort to purge its membership from unworthy participants; it simply declares that the church's failure to do this does not absolve any single member of it from his obligation to observe the Lord's Supper. See Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 285.
II. The Lord's Supper.The Lord's Supper is that outward rite in which the assembled church eats bread broken and drinks wine poured forth by its appointed representative, in token of its constant dependence on the once crucified, now risen Savior, as source of its spiritual life; or, in other words, in token of that abiding communion of Christ's death and resurrection through which the life begun in regeneration is sustained and perfected.Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 31, 33, says that the Scripture nowhere speaks of the wine as“poured forth”; and in1 Cor. 11:24—“my body which is broken for you,”the Revised Version omits the word“broken”; while on the other hand the Gospel according to John (19:36) calls especial attention to the fact that Christ's body wasnotbroken. We reply that Jesus, in giving his disciples the cup, did speak of his blood as“poured out”(Mark 14:24); and it was not the body, but“a bone of him,”which was not to be broken. Many ancient manuscripts add the word“broken”in1 Cor. 11:24. On the Lord's Supper in general, see Weston, in Madison Avenue Lectures, 183-195; Dagg, Church Order, 203-214.1. The Lord's Supper an ordinance instituted by Christ.(a) Christ appointed an outward rite to be observed by his disciples in remembrance of his death. It was to be observed after his death; only after his death could it completely fulfil its purpose as a feast of commemoration.Luke 22:19—“And be took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you”;1 Cor. 11:23-25—“For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”Observe that this communion was Christian communion before Christ's death, just as John's baptism was Christian baptism before Christ's death.(b) From the apostolic injunction with regard to its celebration in the church until Christ's second coming, we infer that it was the original intention of our Lord to institute a rite of perpetual and universal obligation.1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”As the paschal supper continued until Christ came the first time in the flesh, so the Lord's Supper is to continue until he comes the second time with all the power and glory of God.(c) The uniform practice of the N. T. churches, and the celebration of such a rite in subsequent ages by almost all churches professing to be[pg 960]Christian, is best explained upon the supposition that the Lord's Supper is an ordinance established by Christ himself.Acts 2:42—“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers”;46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart”—on the words here translated“at home”(κατ᾽ οἶκον), but meaning, as Jacob maintains,“from one worship-room to another,”see page961.Acts 20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”;1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who art many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”2. The Mode of administering the Lord's Supper.(a) The elements are bread and wine.Although the bread which Jesus broke at the institution of the ordinance was doubtless the unleavened bread of the Passover, there is nothing in the symbolism of the Lord's Supper which necessitates the Romanist use of the wafer. Although the wine which Jesus poured out was doubtless the ordinary fermented juice of the grape, there is nothing in the symbolism of the ordinance which forbids the use of unfermented juice of the grape,—obedience to the command“This do in remembrance of me”(Luke 22:19) requires only that we should use the“fruit of the vine”(Mat. 26:29).Huguenots and Roman Catholics, among Parkman's Pioneers of France in the New World, disputed whether the sacramental bread could be made of the meal of Indian corn. But it is only as food, that the bread is symbolic. Dried fish is used in Greenland. The bread only symbolizes Christ's life and the wine only symbolizes his death. Any food or drink may do the same. It therefore seems a very conscientious but unnecessary literalism, when Adoniram Judson (Life by his Son, 352) writes from Burma:“No wine to be procured in this place, on which account we are unable to meet with the other churches this day in partaking of the Lord's Supper.”For proof that Bible wines, like all other wines, are fermented, see Presb. Rev., 1881:80-114; 1882:78-108, 394-399, 586; Hovey, in Bap. Quar. Rev., April, 1887:152-180.Per contra, see Samson, Bible Wines. On the Scripture Law of Temperance, see Presb. Rev., 1882:287-324.(b) The communion is of both kinds,—that is, communicants are to partake both of the bread and of the wine.The Roman Catholic Church withholds the wine from the laity, although it considers the whole Christ to be present under each of the forms. Christ, however, says:“Drink ye all of it”(Mat. 26:27). To withhold the wine from any believer is disobedience to Christ, and is too easily understood as teaching that the laity have only a portion of the benefits of Christ's death. Calvin:“As to the bread, he simply said‘Take, eat.’Why does he expressly bid themalldrink? And why does Mark explicitly say that‘they all drank of it’(Mark 14:23)?”Bengel: Does not this suggest that, if communion in“one kind alone were sufficient, it is the cup which should be used? The Scripture thus speaks, foreseeing what Rome would do.”See Expositor's Greek Testament on1 Cor. 11:27. In the Greek Church the bread and wine are mingled and are administered to communicants, not to infants only but also to adults, with a spoon.(c) The partaking of these elements is of a festal nature.The Passover was festal in its nature. Gloom and sadness are foreign to the spirit of the Lord's Supper. The wine is the symbol of the death of Christ, but of that death by which we live. It reminds us that he drank the cup of suffering in order that we might drink the wine of joy. As the bread is broken to sustain our physical life, so Christ's body was broken by thorns and nails and spear to nourish our spiritual life.1 Cor. 11:29—“For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment onto himself, if he discern not the body.”Here the Authorized Version wrongly had“damnation”instead of“judgment.”Not eternal condemnation, but penal judgment in general, is meant. He who partakes“in an unworthy manner”(verse 27),i. e., in hypocrisy, or merely to satisfy bodily appetites, and not discerning the body of Christ of which the bread is the symbol (verse 29), draws down upon him God's judicial sentence. Of this judgment, the frequent sickness and death in the church at Corinth was a token. Seeverses 30-34, and Meyer's Com.; also[pg 961]Gould, in Am. Com. on1 Cor. 11:27—“unworthily”—“This is not to be understood as referring to the unworthiness of the person himself to partake, but to the unworthy manner of partaking.... The failure to recognize practically the symbolism of the elements, and hence the treatment of the Supper as a common meal, is just what the apostle has pointed out as the fault of the Corinthians, and it is what he characterizes as an unworthy eating and drinking.”The Christian therefore should not be deterred from participation in the Lord's Supper by any feeling of his personal unworthiness, so long as he trusts Christ and aims to obey him, for“All the fitness he requireth Is to feel our need of him.”(d) The communion is a festival of commemoration,—not simply bringing Christ to our remembrance, but making proclamation of his death to the world.1 Cor. 11:24, 26—“this do in remembrance of me.... For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.”As the Passover commemorated the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and as the Fourth of July commemorates our birth as a nation, so the Lord's Supper commemorates the birth of the church in Christ's death and resurrection. As a mother might bid her children meet over her grave and commemorate her, so Christ bids his people meet and remember him. But subjective remembrance is not its only aim. It is public proclamation also. Whether it brings perceptible blessing to us or not, it is to be observed as a means of confessing Christ, testifying our faith, and publishing the fact of his death to others.(e) It is to be celebrated by the assembled church. It is not a solitary observance on the part of individuals. No“showing forth”is possible except in company.Acts 20:7—“gathered together to break bread”;1 Cor. 11:18, 20, 22, 33, 34—“when ye come together in the church ... assemble yourselves together ... have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? ... when ye come together to eat.... If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment.”Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 191-194, claims that inActs 2:46—“breaking bread at home”—where we have οἶκος, not οἶκία, οἶκος is not a private house, but a“worship-room,”and that the phrase should be translated“breaking bread from one worship-room to another,”or“in various worship-rooms.”This meaning seems very apt inActs 5:42—“And every day, in the temple and at home[rather,‘in various worship-rooms’], they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ”;8:3—“But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house[rather,‘every worship-room’]and dragging men and women committed them to prison”;Rom. 16:5—“salute the church that is in their house[rather,‘in their worship-room’]”;Titus 1:11—“men who overthrow whole houses[rather,‘whole worship-rooms’],teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.”Per contra, however, see1 Cor. 11:34—“let him eat at home,”where οἶκος is contrasted with the place of meeting; so also1 Cor. 14:35andActs 20:20, where οἶκος seems to mean a private house.The celebration of the Lord's Supper in each family by itself is not recognized in the New Testament. Stanley, in Nineteenth Century, May, 1878, tells us that as infant communion is forbidden in the Western Church, and evening communion is forbidden by the Roman Church, so solitary communion is forbidden by the English Church, and death-bed communion by the Scottish Church. E. G. Robinson:“No single individual in the New Testament ever celebrates the Lord's Supper by himself.”Mrs. Browning recognized the essentially social nature of the ordinance, when she said that truth was like the bread at the Sacrament—to be passed on. In this the Supper gives us a type of the proper treatment of all the goods of life, both temporal and spiritual.Dr. Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, claims that the Lord's Supper is no more an exclusively church ordinance than is singing or prayer; that the command to observe it was addressed, not to an organized church, but only to individuals; that every meal in the home was to be a Lord's Supper, because Christ was remembered in it. But we reply that Paul's letter with regard to the abuses of the Lord's Supper was addressed, not to individuals, but to“the church of God which is at Corinth.”(1 Cor. 1:2). Paul reproves the Corinthians because in the Lord's Supper each ate without thought of others:“What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not?”(11:22). Each member having appeased his hunger at home, the members of the church“come together to eat”(11:30), as the spiritual body of Christ. All this shows that the celebration of the Lord's Supper was not an appendage to every ordinary meal.[pg 962]InActs 20:7—“upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”—the natural inference is that the Lord's Supper was a sacred rite, observed apart from any ordinary meal, and accompanied by religious instruction. Dr. Fox would go back of these later observances to the original command of our Lord. He would eliminate all that we do not find in Mark, the earliest gospel. But this would deprive us of the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Prodigal Son, and the discourses of the fourth gospel. McGiffert gives A. D. 52, as the date of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, and this ante-dates Mark's gospel by at least thirteen years. Paul's account of the Lord's Supper at Corinth is therefore an earlier authority than Mark.(f) The responsibility of seeing that the ordinance is properly administered rests with the church as a body; and the pastor is, in this matter, the proper representative and organ of the church. In cases of extreme exigency, however, as where the church has no pastor and no ordained minister can be secured, it is competent for the church to appoint one from its own number to administer the ordinance.1 Cor. 11:2, 23—“Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.... For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread.”Here the responsibility of administering the Lord's Supper is laid upon the body of believers.(g) The frequency with which the Lord's Supper is to be administered is not indicated either by the N. T. precept or by uniform N. T. example. We have instances both of its daily and of its weekly observance. With respect to this, as well as with respect to the accessories of the ordinance, the church is to exercise a sound discretion.Acts 2:46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home[or perhaps,‘in various worship-rooms’]”;20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.”In 1878, thirty-nine churches of the Establishment in London held daily communion; in two churches it was held twice each day. A few churches of the Baptist faith in England and America celebrate the Lord's Supper on each Lord's day. Carlstadt would celebrate the Lord's Supper only in companies of twelve, and held also that every bishop must marry. Reclining on couches, and meeting in the evening, are not commanded; and both, by their inconvenience, might in modern times counteract the design of the ordinance.3. The Symbolism of the Lord's Supper.The Lord's Supper sets forth, in general, the death of Christ as the sustaining power of the believer's life.A. Expansion of this statement.(a) It symbolizes the death of Christ for our sins.1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mark 14:24—“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many”—the blood upon which the covenant between God and Christ, and so between God and us who are one with Christ, from eternity past was based. The Lord's Supper reminds us of the covenant which ensures our salvation, and of the atonement upon which the covenant was based;cf.Heb. 13:20—“blood of an eternal covenant.”Alex. McLaren:“The suggestion of a violent death, implied in thedoublingof the symbols, by which the body is separated from that of the blood, and still further implied in thebreakingof the bread, is made prominent in the words in reference to the cup. It symbolizes the blood of Jesus which is‘shed.’That shed blood is covenant blood. By it the New Covenant, of which Jeremiah had prophesied, one article of which was,‘Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more,’is sealed and ratified, not for Israel only but for an indefinite‘many,’which is really equivalent to all. Could words more plainly declare that Christ's death was a sacrifice? Can we understand it, according to his own interpretation of it, unless we see in his words here a reference to his previous words (Mat. 20:28) and recognize that in shedding his blood[pg 963]‘for many,’he‘gave his life a ransom for many’? The Lord's Supper is the standing witness, voiced by Jesus himself, that he regarded his death as the very centre of his work, and that he regarded it not merely as a martyrdom, but as a sacrifice by which he put away sins forever. Those who reject that view of that death are sorely puzzled what to make of the Lord's Supper.”(b) It symbolizes our personal appropriation of the benefits of that death.1 Cor. 11:24—“This is my body, which is for you”;cf.1 Cor. 5:7—“Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”; or R. V.—“our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ”; here it is evident not only that the showing forth of the Lord's death is the primary meaning of the ordinance, but that our partaking of the benefits of that death is as clearly taught as the Israelites' deliverance was symbolized in the paschal supper.(c) It symbolizes the method of this appropriation, through union with Christ himself.1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the body of Christ?”Here“is it not a participation”=“does it not symbolize the participation?”SoMat. 26:26—“this is my body”=“this symbolizes my body.”(d) It symbolizes the continuous dependence of the believer for all spiritual life upon the once crucified, now living, Savior, to whom he is thus united.Cf.John 6:53—“Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves”—here is a statement, not with regard to the Lord's Supper, but with regard to spiritual union with Christ, which the Lord's Supper only symbolizes; see page965, (a). Like Baptism, the Lord's Supper presupposes and implies evangelical faith, especially faith in the Deity of Christ; not that all who partake of it realize its full meaning, but that this participation logically implies the five great truths of Christ's preëxistence, his supernatural birth, his vicarious atonement, his literal resurrection, and his living presence with his followers. Because Ralph Waldo Emerson perceived that the Lord's Supper implied Christ's omnipresence and deity, he would no longer celebrate it, and so broke with his church and with the ministry.(e) It symbolizes the sanctification of the Christian through a spiritual reproduction in him of the death and resurrection of the Lord.Rom. 8:10—“And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness”;Phil. 3:10—“that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death; if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead.”The bread of life nourishes; but it transforms me, not I it.(f) It symbolizes the consequent union of Christians in Christ, their head.1 Cor. 10:17—“seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”The Roman Catholic says that bread is the unity of many kernels, the wine the unity of many berries, and all are changed into the body of Christ. We can adopt the former part of the statement, without taking the latter. By being united to Christ, we become united to one another; and the Lord's Supper, as it symbolizes our common partaking of Christ, symbolizes also the consequent oneness of all in whom Christ dwells. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, IX—“As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, and being gathered together became one, so may thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom.”(g) It symbolizes the coming joy and perfection of the kingdom of God.Luke 22:18—“for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”;Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”Like Baptism, which points forward to the resurrection, the Lord's Supper is anticipatory[pg 964]also. It brings before us, not simply death, but life; not simply past sacrifice, but future glory. It points forward to the great festival,“the marriage supper of the Lamb”(Rev. 19:9). Dorner:“Then Christ will keep the Supper anew with us, and the hours of highest solemnity in this life are but a weak foretaste of the powers of the world to come.”See Madison Avenue Lectures, 176-216; The Lord's Supper, a Clerical Symposium, by Pressensé, Luthardt, and English Divines.B. Inferences from this statement.(a) The connection between the Lord's Supper and Baptism consists in this, that they both and equally are symbols of the death of Christ. In Baptism, we show forth the death of Christ as the procuring cause of our new birth into the kingdom of God. In the Lord's Supper, we show forth the death of Christ as the sustaining power of our spiritual life after it has once begun. In the one, we honor the sanctifying power of the death of Christ, as in the other we honor its regenerating power. Thus both are parts of one whole,—setting before us Christ's death for men in its two great purposes and results.If baptism symbolized purification only, there would be no point of connection between the two ordinances. Their common reference to the death of Christ binds the two together.(b) The Lord's Supper is to be often repeated,—as symbolizing Christ's constant nourishment of the soul, whose new birth was signified in Baptism.Yet too frequent repetition may induce superstitious confidence in the value of communion as a mere outward form.(c) The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, is the symbol of a previous state of grace. It has in itself no regenerating and no sanctifying power, but is the symbol by which the relation of the believer to Christ, his sanctifier, is vividly expressed and strongly confirmed.We derive more help from the Lord's Supper than from private prayer, simply because it is anexternalrite, impressing the sense as well as the intellect, celebrated in company with other believers whose faith and devotion help our own, and bringing before us the profoundest truths of Christianity—the death of Christ, and our union with Christ in that death.(d) The blessing received from participation is therefore dependent upon, and proportioned to, the faith of the communicant.In observing the Lord's Supper, we need to discern the body of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:29)—that is, to recognize the spiritual meaning of the ordinance, and the presence of Christ, who through his deputed representatives gives to us the emblems, and who nourishes and quickens our souls as these material things nourish and quicken the body. The faith which thus discerns Christ is the gift of the Holy Spirit.(e) The Lord's Supper expresses primarily the fellowship of the believer, not with his brethren, but with Christ, his Lord.The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, symbolizes fellowship with the brethren only as consequent upon, and incidental to, fellowship with Christ. Just as we are all baptized“into one body”(1 Cor. 12:13) only by being“baptized into Christ”(Rom. 6:3), so we commune with other believers in the Lord's Supper, only as we commune with Christ. Christ's words:“this do in remembrance of me”(1 Cor. 11:24), bid us think, not of our brethren, but of the Lord. Baptism is not a test of personal worthiness. Nor is the Lord's Supper a test of personal worthiness, either our own or that of others. It is not primarily an expression of Christian fellowship. Nowhere in the New Testament is it called a communion of Christians with one another. But it is called a communion of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16)—or, in other words, a participation in him. Hence there is not a single cup, but many:“divide it among yourselves”(Luke 22:17). Here is warrant for the individual[pg 965]communion-cup. Most churches use more than one cup: if more than one, why not many?1 Cor. 11:26—“as often as ye eat ... ye proclaim the Lord's death”—the Lord's Supper is a teaching ordinance, and is to be observed, not simply for the good that comes to the communicant and to his brethren, but for the sake of the witness which it gives to the world that the Christ who died for its sins now lives for its salvation. A. H. Ballard, in The Standard, Aug. 18, 1900, on1 Cor. 11:29—“eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body”—“He who eats and drinks, and does not discern that he is redeemed by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, eats and drinks a double condemnation, because he does not discern the redemption which is symbolized by the things which he eats and drinks. To turn his thought away from that sacrificial body to the company of disciples assembled is a grievous error—the error of all those who exalt the idea of fellowship or communion in the celebration of the ordinance.”The offence of a Christian brother, therefore, even if committed against myself, should not prevent me from remembering Christ and communing with the Savior. I could not commune at all, if I had to vouch for the Christian character of all who sat with me. This does not excuse the church from effort to purge its membership from unworthy participants; it simply declares that the church's failure to do this does not absolve any single member of it from his obligation to observe the Lord's Supper. See Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 285.
II. The Lord's Supper.The Lord's Supper is that outward rite in which the assembled church eats bread broken and drinks wine poured forth by its appointed representative, in token of its constant dependence on the once crucified, now risen Savior, as source of its spiritual life; or, in other words, in token of that abiding communion of Christ's death and resurrection through which the life begun in regeneration is sustained and perfected.Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 31, 33, says that the Scripture nowhere speaks of the wine as“poured forth”; and in1 Cor. 11:24—“my body which is broken for you,”the Revised Version omits the word“broken”; while on the other hand the Gospel according to John (19:36) calls especial attention to the fact that Christ's body wasnotbroken. We reply that Jesus, in giving his disciples the cup, did speak of his blood as“poured out”(Mark 14:24); and it was not the body, but“a bone of him,”which was not to be broken. Many ancient manuscripts add the word“broken”in1 Cor. 11:24. On the Lord's Supper in general, see Weston, in Madison Avenue Lectures, 183-195; Dagg, Church Order, 203-214.1. The Lord's Supper an ordinance instituted by Christ.(a) Christ appointed an outward rite to be observed by his disciples in remembrance of his death. It was to be observed after his death; only after his death could it completely fulfil its purpose as a feast of commemoration.Luke 22:19—“And be took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you”;1 Cor. 11:23-25—“For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”Observe that this communion was Christian communion before Christ's death, just as John's baptism was Christian baptism before Christ's death.(b) From the apostolic injunction with regard to its celebration in the church until Christ's second coming, we infer that it was the original intention of our Lord to institute a rite of perpetual and universal obligation.1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”As the paschal supper continued until Christ came the first time in the flesh, so the Lord's Supper is to continue until he comes the second time with all the power and glory of God.(c) The uniform practice of the N. T. churches, and the celebration of such a rite in subsequent ages by almost all churches professing to be[pg 960]Christian, is best explained upon the supposition that the Lord's Supper is an ordinance established by Christ himself.Acts 2:42—“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers”;46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart”—on the words here translated“at home”(κατ᾽ οἶκον), but meaning, as Jacob maintains,“from one worship-room to another,”see page961.Acts 20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”;1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who art many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”2. The Mode of administering the Lord's Supper.(a) The elements are bread and wine.Although the bread which Jesus broke at the institution of the ordinance was doubtless the unleavened bread of the Passover, there is nothing in the symbolism of the Lord's Supper which necessitates the Romanist use of the wafer. Although the wine which Jesus poured out was doubtless the ordinary fermented juice of the grape, there is nothing in the symbolism of the ordinance which forbids the use of unfermented juice of the grape,—obedience to the command“This do in remembrance of me”(Luke 22:19) requires only that we should use the“fruit of the vine”(Mat. 26:29).Huguenots and Roman Catholics, among Parkman's Pioneers of France in the New World, disputed whether the sacramental bread could be made of the meal of Indian corn. But it is only as food, that the bread is symbolic. Dried fish is used in Greenland. The bread only symbolizes Christ's life and the wine only symbolizes his death. Any food or drink may do the same. It therefore seems a very conscientious but unnecessary literalism, when Adoniram Judson (Life by his Son, 352) writes from Burma:“No wine to be procured in this place, on which account we are unable to meet with the other churches this day in partaking of the Lord's Supper.”For proof that Bible wines, like all other wines, are fermented, see Presb. Rev., 1881:80-114; 1882:78-108, 394-399, 586; Hovey, in Bap. Quar. Rev., April, 1887:152-180.Per contra, see Samson, Bible Wines. On the Scripture Law of Temperance, see Presb. Rev., 1882:287-324.(b) The communion is of both kinds,—that is, communicants are to partake both of the bread and of the wine.The Roman Catholic Church withholds the wine from the laity, although it considers the whole Christ to be present under each of the forms. Christ, however, says:“Drink ye all of it”(Mat. 26:27). To withhold the wine from any believer is disobedience to Christ, and is too easily understood as teaching that the laity have only a portion of the benefits of Christ's death. Calvin:“As to the bread, he simply said‘Take, eat.’Why does he expressly bid themalldrink? And why does Mark explicitly say that‘they all drank of it’(Mark 14:23)?”Bengel: Does not this suggest that, if communion in“one kind alone were sufficient, it is the cup which should be used? The Scripture thus speaks, foreseeing what Rome would do.”See Expositor's Greek Testament on1 Cor. 11:27. In the Greek Church the bread and wine are mingled and are administered to communicants, not to infants only but also to adults, with a spoon.(c) The partaking of these elements is of a festal nature.The Passover was festal in its nature. Gloom and sadness are foreign to the spirit of the Lord's Supper. The wine is the symbol of the death of Christ, but of that death by which we live. It reminds us that he drank the cup of suffering in order that we might drink the wine of joy. As the bread is broken to sustain our physical life, so Christ's body was broken by thorns and nails and spear to nourish our spiritual life.1 Cor. 11:29—“For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment onto himself, if he discern not the body.”Here the Authorized Version wrongly had“damnation”instead of“judgment.”Not eternal condemnation, but penal judgment in general, is meant. He who partakes“in an unworthy manner”(verse 27),i. e., in hypocrisy, or merely to satisfy bodily appetites, and not discerning the body of Christ of which the bread is the symbol (verse 29), draws down upon him God's judicial sentence. Of this judgment, the frequent sickness and death in the church at Corinth was a token. Seeverses 30-34, and Meyer's Com.; also[pg 961]Gould, in Am. Com. on1 Cor. 11:27—“unworthily”—“This is not to be understood as referring to the unworthiness of the person himself to partake, but to the unworthy manner of partaking.... The failure to recognize practically the symbolism of the elements, and hence the treatment of the Supper as a common meal, is just what the apostle has pointed out as the fault of the Corinthians, and it is what he characterizes as an unworthy eating and drinking.”The Christian therefore should not be deterred from participation in the Lord's Supper by any feeling of his personal unworthiness, so long as he trusts Christ and aims to obey him, for“All the fitness he requireth Is to feel our need of him.”(d) The communion is a festival of commemoration,—not simply bringing Christ to our remembrance, but making proclamation of his death to the world.1 Cor. 11:24, 26—“this do in remembrance of me.... For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.”As the Passover commemorated the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and as the Fourth of July commemorates our birth as a nation, so the Lord's Supper commemorates the birth of the church in Christ's death and resurrection. As a mother might bid her children meet over her grave and commemorate her, so Christ bids his people meet and remember him. But subjective remembrance is not its only aim. It is public proclamation also. Whether it brings perceptible blessing to us or not, it is to be observed as a means of confessing Christ, testifying our faith, and publishing the fact of his death to others.(e) It is to be celebrated by the assembled church. It is not a solitary observance on the part of individuals. No“showing forth”is possible except in company.Acts 20:7—“gathered together to break bread”;1 Cor. 11:18, 20, 22, 33, 34—“when ye come together in the church ... assemble yourselves together ... have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? ... when ye come together to eat.... If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment.”Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 191-194, claims that inActs 2:46—“breaking bread at home”—where we have οἶκος, not οἶκία, οἶκος is not a private house, but a“worship-room,”and that the phrase should be translated“breaking bread from one worship-room to another,”or“in various worship-rooms.”This meaning seems very apt inActs 5:42—“And every day, in the temple and at home[rather,‘in various worship-rooms’], they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ”;8:3—“But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house[rather,‘every worship-room’]and dragging men and women committed them to prison”;Rom. 16:5—“salute the church that is in their house[rather,‘in their worship-room’]”;Titus 1:11—“men who overthrow whole houses[rather,‘whole worship-rooms’],teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.”Per contra, however, see1 Cor. 11:34—“let him eat at home,”where οἶκος is contrasted with the place of meeting; so also1 Cor. 14:35andActs 20:20, where οἶκος seems to mean a private house.The celebration of the Lord's Supper in each family by itself is not recognized in the New Testament. Stanley, in Nineteenth Century, May, 1878, tells us that as infant communion is forbidden in the Western Church, and evening communion is forbidden by the Roman Church, so solitary communion is forbidden by the English Church, and death-bed communion by the Scottish Church. E. G. Robinson:“No single individual in the New Testament ever celebrates the Lord's Supper by himself.”Mrs. Browning recognized the essentially social nature of the ordinance, when she said that truth was like the bread at the Sacrament—to be passed on. In this the Supper gives us a type of the proper treatment of all the goods of life, both temporal and spiritual.Dr. Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, claims that the Lord's Supper is no more an exclusively church ordinance than is singing or prayer; that the command to observe it was addressed, not to an organized church, but only to individuals; that every meal in the home was to be a Lord's Supper, because Christ was remembered in it. But we reply that Paul's letter with regard to the abuses of the Lord's Supper was addressed, not to individuals, but to“the church of God which is at Corinth.”(1 Cor. 1:2). Paul reproves the Corinthians because in the Lord's Supper each ate without thought of others:“What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not?”(11:22). Each member having appeased his hunger at home, the members of the church“come together to eat”(11:30), as the spiritual body of Christ. All this shows that the celebration of the Lord's Supper was not an appendage to every ordinary meal.[pg 962]InActs 20:7—“upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”—the natural inference is that the Lord's Supper was a sacred rite, observed apart from any ordinary meal, and accompanied by religious instruction. Dr. Fox would go back of these later observances to the original command of our Lord. He would eliminate all that we do not find in Mark, the earliest gospel. But this would deprive us of the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Prodigal Son, and the discourses of the fourth gospel. McGiffert gives A. D. 52, as the date of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, and this ante-dates Mark's gospel by at least thirteen years. Paul's account of the Lord's Supper at Corinth is therefore an earlier authority than Mark.(f) The responsibility of seeing that the ordinance is properly administered rests with the church as a body; and the pastor is, in this matter, the proper representative and organ of the church. In cases of extreme exigency, however, as where the church has no pastor and no ordained minister can be secured, it is competent for the church to appoint one from its own number to administer the ordinance.1 Cor. 11:2, 23—“Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.... For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread.”Here the responsibility of administering the Lord's Supper is laid upon the body of believers.(g) The frequency with which the Lord's Supper is to be administered is not indicated either by the N. T. precept or by uniform N. T. example. We have instances both of its daily and of its weekly observance. With respect to this, as well as with respect to the accessories of the ordinance, the church is to exercise a sound discretion.Acts 2:46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home[or perhaps,‘in various worship-rooms’]”;20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.”In 1878, thirty-nine churches of the Establishment in London held daily communion; in two churches it was held twice each day. A few churches of the Baptist faith in England and America celebrate the Lord's Supper on each Lord's day. Carlstadt would celebrate the Lord's Supper only in companies of twelve, and held also that every bishop must marry. Reclining on couches, and meeting in the evening, are not commanded; and both, by their inconvenience, might in modern times counteract the design of the ordinance.3. The Symbolism of the Lord's Supper.The Lord's Supper sets forth, in general, the death of Christ as the sustaining power of the believer's life.A. Expansion of this statement.(a) It symbolizes the death of Christ for our sins.1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mark 14:24—“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many”—the blood upon which the covenant between God and Christ, and so between God and us who are one with Christ, from eternity past was based. The Lord's Supper reminds us of the covenant which ensures our salvation, and of the atonement upon which the covenant was based;cf.Heb. 13:20—“blood of an eternal covenant.”Alex. McLaren:“The suggestion of a violent death, implied in thedoublingof the symbols, by which the body is separated from that of the blood, and still further implied in thebreakingof the bread, is made prominent in the words in reference to the cup. It symbolizes the blood of Jesus which is‘shed.’That shed blood is covenant blood. By it the New Covenant, of which Jeremiah had prophesied, one article of which was,‘Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more,’is sealed and ratified, not for Israel only but for an indefinite‘many,’which is really equivalent to all. Could words more plainly declare that Christ's death was a sacrifice? Can we understand it, according to his own interpretation of it, unless we see in his words here a reference to his previous words (Mat. 20:28) and recognize that in shedding his blood[pg 963]‘for many,’he‘gave his life a ransom for many’? The Lord's Supper is the standing witness, voiced by Jesus himself, that he regarded his death as the very centre of his work, and that he regarded it not merely as a martyrdom, but as a sacrifice by which he put away sins forever. Those who reject that view of that death are sorely puzzled what to make of the Lord's Supper.”(b) It symbolizes our personal appropriation of the benefits of that death.1 Cor. 11:24—“This is my body, which is for you”;cf.1 Cor. 5:7—“Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”; or R. V.—“our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ”; here it is evident not only that the showing forth of the Lord's death is the primary meaning of the ordinance, but that our partaking of the benefits of that death is as clearly taught as the Israelites' deliverance was symbolized in the paschal supper.(c) It symbolizes the method of this appropriation, through union with Christ himself.1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the body of Christ?”Here“is it not a participation”=“does it not symbolize the participation?”SoMat. 26:26—“this is my body”=“this symbolizes my body.”(d) It symbolizes the continuous dependence of the believer for all spiritual life upon the once crucified, now living, Savior, to whom he is thus united.Cf.John 6:53—“Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves”—here is a statement, not with regard to the Lord's Supper, but with regard to spiritual union with Christ, which the Lord's Supper only symbolizes; see page965, (a). Like Baptism, the Lord's Supper presupposes and implies evangelical faith, especially faith in the Deity of Christ; not that all who partake of it realize its full meaning, but that this participation logically implies the five great truths of Christ's preëxistence, his supernatural birth, his vicarious atonement, his literal resurrection, and his living presence with his followers. Because Ralph Waldo Emerson perceived that the Lord's Supper implied Christ's omnipresence and deity, he would no longer celebrate it, and so broke with his church and with the ministry.(e) It symbolizes the sanctification of the Christian through a spiritual reproduction in him of the death and resurrection of the Lord.Rom. 8:10—“And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness”;Phil. 3:10—“that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death; if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead.”The bread of life nourishes; but it transforms me, not I it.(f) It symbolizes the consequent union of Christians in Christ, their head.1 Cor. 10:17—“seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”The Roman Catholic says that bread is the unity of many kernels, the wine the unity of many berries, and all are changed into the body of Christ. We can adopt the former part of the statement, without taking the latter. By being united to Christ, we become united to one another; and the Lord's Supper, as it symbolizes our common partaking of Christ, symbolizes also the consequent oneness of all in whom Christ dwells. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, IX—“As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, and being gathered together became one, so may thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom.”(g) It symbolizes the coming joy and perfection of the kingdom of God.Luke 22:18—“for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”;Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”Like Baptism, which points forward to the resurrection, the Lord's Supper is anticipatory[pg 964]also. It brings before us, not simply death, but life; not simply past sacrifice, but future glory. It points forward to the great festival,“the marriage supper of the Lamb”(Rev. 19:9). Dorner:“Then Christ will keep the Supper anew with us, and the hours of highest solemnity in this life are but a weak foretaste of the powers of the world to come.”See Madison Avenue Lectures, 176-216; The Lord's Supper, a Clerical Symposium, by Pressensé, Luthardt, and English Divines.B. Inferences from this statement.(a) The connection between the Lord's Supper and Baptism consists in this, that they both and equally are symbols of the death of Christ. In Baptism, we show forth the death of Christ as the procuring cause of our new birth into the kingdom of God. In the Lord's Supper, we show forth the death of Christ as the sustaining power of our spiritual life after it has once begun. In the one, we honor the sanctifying power of the death of Christ, as in the other we honor its regenerating power. Thus both are parts of one whole,—setting before us Christ's death for men in its two great purposes and results.If baptism symbolized purification only, there would be no point of connection between the two ordinances. Their common reference to the death of Christ binds the two together.(b) The Lord's Supper is to be often repeated,—as symbolizing Christ's constant nourishment of the soul, whose new birth was signified in Baptism.Yet too frequent repetition may induce superstitious confidence in the value of communion as a mere outward form.(c) The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, is the symbol of a previous state of grace. It has in itself no regenerating and no sanctifying power, but is the symbol by which the relation of the believer to Christ, his sanctifier, is vividly expressed and strongly confirmed.We derive more help from the Lord's Supper than from private prayer, simply because it is anexternalrite, impressing the sense as well as the intellect, celebrated in company with other believers whose faith and devotion help our own, and bringing before us the profoundest truths of Christianity—the death of Christ, and our union with Christ in that death.(d) The blessing received from participation is therefore dependent upon, and proportioned to, the faith of the communicant.In observing the Lord's Supper, we need to discern the body of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:29)—that is, to recognize the spiritual meaning of the ordinance, and the presence of Christ, who through his deputed representatives gives to us the emblems, and who nourishes and quickens our souls as these material things nourish and quicken the body. The faith which thus discerns Christ is the gift of the Holy Spirit.(e) The Lord's Supper expresses primarily the fellowship of the believer, not with his brethren, but with Christ, his Lord.The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, symbolizes fellowship with the brethren only as consequent upon, and incidental to, fellowship with Christ. Just as we are all baptized“into one body”(1 Cor. 12:13) only by being“baptized into Christ”(Rom. 6:3), so we commune with other believers in the Lord's Supper, only as we commune with Christ. Christ's words:“this do in remembrance of me”(1 Cor. 11:24), bid us think, not of our brethren, but of the Lord. Baptism is not a test of personal worthiness. Nor is the Lord's Supper a test of personal worthiness, either our own or that of others. It is not primarily an expression of Christian fellowship. Nowhere in the New Testament is it called a communion of Christians with one another. But it is called a communion of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16)—or, in other words, a participation in him. Hence there is not a single cup, but many:“divide it among yourselves”(Luke 22:17). Here is warrant for the individual[pg 965]communion-cup. Most churches use more than one cup: if more than one, why not many?1 Cor. 11:26—“as often as ye eat ... ye proclaim the Lord's death”—the Lord's Supper is a teaching ordinance, and is to be observed, not simply for the good that comes to the communicant and to his brethren, but for the sake of the witness which it gives to the world that the Christ who died for its sins now lives for its salvation. A. H. Ballard, in The Standard, Aug. 18, 1900, on1 Cor. 11:29—“eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body”—“He who eats and drinks, and does not discern that he is redeemed by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, eats and drinks a double condemnation, because he does not discern the redemption which is symbolized by the things which he eats and drinks. To turn his thought away from that sacrificial body to the company of disciples assembled is a grievous error—the error of all those who exalt the idea of fellowship or communion in the celebration of the ordinance.”The offence of a Christian brother, therefore, even if committed against myself, should not prevent me from remembering Christ and communing with the Savior. I could not commune at all, if I had to vouch for the Christian character of all who sat with me. This does not excuse the church from effort to purge its membership from unworthy participants; it simply declares that the church's failure to do this does not absolve any single member of it from his obligation to observe the Lord's Supper. See Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 285.
The Lord's Supper is that outward rite in which the assembled church eats bread broken and drinks wine poured forth by its appointed representative, in token of its constant dependence on the once crucified, now risen Savior, as source of its spiritual life; or, in other words, in token of that abiding communion of Christ's death and resurrection through which the life begun in regeneration is sustained and perfected.
Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 31, 33, says that the Scripture nowhere speaks of the wine as“poured forth”; and in1 Cor. 11:24—“my body which is broken for you,”the Revised Version omits the word“broken”; while on the other hand the Gospel according to John (19:36) calls especial attention to the fact that Christ's body wasnotbroken. We reply that Jesus, in giving his disciples the cup, did speak of his blood as“poured out”(Mark 14:24); and it was not the body, but“a bone of him,”which was not to be broken. Many ancient manuscripts add the word“broken”in1 Cor. 11:24. On the Lord's Supper in general, see Weston, in Madison Avenue Lectures, 183-195; Dagg, Church Order, 203-214.
Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 31, 33, says that the Scripture nowhere speaks of the wine as“poured forth”; and in1 Cor. 11:24—“my body which is broken for you,”the Revised Version omits the word“broken”; while on the other hand the Gospel according to John (19:36) calls especial attention to the fact that Christ's body wasnotbroken. We reply that Jesus, in giving his disciples the cup, did speak of his blood as“poured out”(Mark 14:24); and it was not the body, but“a bone of him,”which was not to be broken. Many ancient manuscripts add the word“broken”in1 Cor. 11:24. On the Lord's Supper in general, see Weston, in Madison Avenue Lectures, 183-195; Dagg, Church Order, 203-214.
1. The Lord's Supper an ordinance instituted by Christ.(a) Christ appointed an outward rite to be observed by his disciples in remembrance of his death. It was to be observed after his death; only after his death could it completely fulfil its purpose as a feast of commemoration.Luke 22:19—“And be took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you”;1 Cor. 11:23-25—“For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”Observe that this communion was Christian communion before Christ's death, just as John's baptism was Christian baptism before Christ's death.(b) From the apostolic injunction with regard to its celebration in the church until Christ's second coming, we infer that it was the original intention of our Lord to institute a rite of perpetual and universal obligation.1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”As the paschal supper continued until Christ came the first time in the flesh, so the Lord's Supper is to continue until he comes the second time with all the power and glory of God.(c) The uniform practice of the N. T. churches, and the celebration of such a rite in subsequent ages by almost all churches professing to be[pg 960]Christian, is best explained upon the supposition that the Lord's Supper is an ordinance established by Christ himself.Acts 2:42—“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers”;46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart”—on the words here translated“at home”(κατ᾽ οἶκον), but meaning, as Jacob maintains,“from one worship-room to another,”see page961.Acts 20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”;1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who art many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”
(a) Christ appointed an outward rite to be observed by his disciples in remembrance of his death. It was to be observed after his death; only after his death could it completely fulfil its purpose as a feast of commemoration.
Luke 22:19—“And be took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you”;1 Cor. 11:23-25—“For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”Observe that this communion was Christian communion before Christ's death, just as John's baptism was Christian baptism before Christ's death.
Luke 22:19—“And be took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you”;1 Cor. 11:23-25—“For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”Observe that this communion was Christian communion before Christ's death, just as John's baptism was Christian baptism before Christ's death.
(b) From the apostolic injunction with regard to its celebration in the church until Christ's second coming, we infer that it was the original intention of our Lord to institute a rite of perpetual and universal obligation.
1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”As the paschal supper continued until Christ came the first time in the flesh, so the Lord's Supper is to continue until he comes the second time with all the power and glory of God.
1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”As the paschal supper continued until Christ came the first time in the flesh, so the Lord's Supper is to continue until he comes the second time with all the power and glory of God.
(c) The uniform practice of the N. T. churches, and the celebration of such a rite in subsequent ages by almost all churches professing to be[pg 960]Christian, is best explained upon the supposition that the Lord's Supper is an ordinance established by Christ himself.
Acts 2:42—“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers”;46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart”—on the words here translated“at home”(κατ᾽ οἶκον), but meaning, as Jacob maintains,“from one worship-room to another,”see page961.Acts 20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”;1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who art many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”
Acts 2:42—“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers”;46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart”—on the words here translated“at home”(κατ᾽ οἶκον), but meaning, as Jacob maintains,“from one worship-room to another,”see page961.Acts 20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”;1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who art many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”
2. The Mode of administering the Lord's Supper.(a) The elements are bread and wine.Although the bread which Jesus broke at the institution of the ordinance was doubtless the unleavened bread of the Passover, there is nothing in the symbolism of the Lord's Supper which necessitates the Romanist use of the wafer. Although the wine which Jesus poured out was doubtless the ordinary fermented juice of the grape, there is nothing in the symbolism of the ordinance which forbids the use of unfermented juice of the grape,—obedience to the command“This do in remembrance of me”(Luke 22:19) requires only that we should use the“fruit of the vine”(Mat. 26:29).Huguenots and Roman Catholics, among Parkman's Pioneers of France in the New World, disputed whether the sacramental bread could be made of the meal of Indian corn. But it is only as food, that the bread is symbolic. Dried fish is used in Greenland. The bread only symbolizes Christ's life and the wine only symbolizes his death. Any food or drink may do the same. It therefore seems a very conscientious but unnecessary literalism, when Adoniram Judson (Life by his Son, 352) writes from Burma:“No wine to be procured in this place, on which account we are unable to meet with the other churches this day in partaking of the Lord's Supper.”For proof that Bible wines, like all other wines, are fermented, see Presb. Rev., 1881:80-114; 1882:78-108, 394-399, 586; Hovey, in Bap. Quar. Rev., April, 1887:152-180.Per contra, see Samson, Bible Wines. On the Scripture Law of Temperance, see Presb. Rev., 1882:287-324.(b) The communion is of both kinds,—that is, communicants are to partake both of the bread and of the wine.The Roman Catholic Church withholds the wine from the laity, although it considers the whole Christ to be present under each of the forms. Christ, however, says:“Drink ye all of it”(Mat. 26:27). To withhold the wine from any believer is disobedience to Christ, and is too easily understood as teaching that the laity have only a portion of the benefits of Christ's death. Calvin:“As to the bread, he simply said‘Take, eat.’Why does he expressly bid themalldrink? And why does Mark explicitly say that‘they all drank of it’(Mark 14:23)?”Bengel: Does not this suggest that, if communion in“one kind alone were sufficient, it is the cup which should be used? The Scripture thus speaks, foreseeing what Rome would do.”See Expositor's Greek Testament on1 Cor. 11:27. In the Greek Church the bread and wine are mingled and are administered to communicants, not to infants only but also to adults, with a spoon.(c) The partaking of these elements is of a festal nature.The Passover was festal in its nature. Gloom and sadness are foreign to the spirit of the Lord's Supper. The wine is the symbol of the death of Christ, but of that death by which we live. It reminds us that he drank the cup of suffering in order that we might drink the wine of joy. As the bread is broken to sustain our physical life, so Christ's body was broken by thorns and nails and spear to nourish our spiritual life.1 Cor. 11:29—“For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment onto himself, if he discern not the body.”Here the Authorized Version wrongly had“damnation”instead of“judgment.”Not eternal condemnation, but penal judgment in general, is meant. He who partakes“in an unworthy manner”(verse 27),i. e., in hypocrisy, or merely to satisfy bodily appetites, and not discerning the body of Christ of which the bread is the symbol (verse 29), draws down upon him God's judicial sentence. Of this judgment, the frequent sickness and death in the church at Corinth was a token. Seeverses 30-34, and Meyer's Com.; also[pg 961]Gould, in Am. Com. on1 Cor. 11:27—“unworthily”—“This is not to be understood as referring to the unworthiness of the person himself to partake, but to the unworthy manner of partaking.... The failure to recognize practically the symbolism of the elements, and hence the treatment of the Supper as a common meal, is just what the apostle has pointed out as the fault of the Corinthians, and it is what he characterizes as an unworthy eating and drinking.”The Christian therefore should not be deterred from participation in the Lord's Supper by any feeling of his personal unworthiness, so long as he trusts Christ and aims to obey him, for“All the fitness he requireth Is to feel our need of him.”(d) The communion is a festival of commemoration,—not simply bringing Christ to our remembrance, but making proclamation of his death to the world.1 Cor. 11:24, 26—“this do in remembrance of me.... For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.”As the Passover commemorated the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and as the Fourth of July commemorates our birth as a nation, so the Lord's Supper commemorates the birth of the church in Christ's death and resurrection. As a mother might bid her children meet over her grave and commemorate her, so Christ bids his people meet and remember him. But subjective remembrance is not its only aim. It is public proclamation also. Whether it brings perceptible blessing to us or not, it is to be observed as a means of confessing Christ, testifying our faith, and publishing the fact of his death to others.(e) It is to be celebrated by the assembled church. It is not a solitary observance on the part of individuals. No“showing forth”is possible except in company.Acts 20:7—“gathered together to break bread”;1 Cor. 11:18, 20, 22, 33, 34—“when ye come together in the church ... assemble yourselves together ... have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? ... when ye come together to eat.... If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment.”Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 191-194, claims that inActs 2:46—“breaking bread at home”—where we have οἶκος, not οἶκία, οἶκος is not a private house, but a“worship-room,”and that the phrase should be translated“breaking bread from one worship-room to another,”or“in various worship-rooms.”This meaning seems very apt inActs 5:42—“And every day, in the temple and at home[rather,‘in various worship-rooms’], they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ”;8:3—“But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house[rather,‘every worship-room’]and dragging men and women committed them to prison”;Rom. 16:5—“salute the church that is in their house[rather,‘in their worship-room’]”;Titus 1:11—“men who overthrow whole houses[rather,‘whole worship-rooms’],teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.”Per contra, however, see1 Cor. 11:34—“let him eat at home,”where οἶκος is contrasted with the place of meeting; so also1 Cor. 14:35andActs 20:20, where οἶκος seems to mean a private house.The celebration of the Lord's Supper in each family by itself is not recognized in the New Testament. Stanley, in Nineteenth Century, May, 1878, tells us that as infant communion is forbidden in the Western Church, and evening communion is forbidden by the Roman Church, so solitary communion is forbidden by the English Church, and death-bed communion by the Scottish Church. E. G. Robinson:“No single individual in the New Testament ever celebrates the Lord's Supper by himself.”Mrs. Browning recognized the essentially social nature of the ordinance, when she said that truth was like the bread at the Sacrament—to be passed on. In this the Supper gives us a type of the proper treatment of all the goods of life, both temporal and spiritual.Dr. Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, claims that the Lord's Supper is no more an exclusively church ordinance than is singing or prayer; that the command to observe it was addressed, not to an organized church, but only to individuals; that every meal in the home was to be a Lord's Supper, because Christ was remembered in it. But we reply that Paul's letter with regard to the abuses of the Lord's Supper was addressed, not to individuals, but to“the church of God which is at Corinth.”(1 Cor. 1:2). Paul reproves the Corinthians because in the Lord's Supper each ate without thought of others:“What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not?”(11:22). Each member having appeased his hunger at home, the members of the church“come together to eat”(11:30), as the spiritual body of Christ. All this shows that the celebration of the Lord's Supper was not an appendage to every ordinary meal.[pg 962]InActs 20:7—“upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”—the natural inference is that the Lord's Supper was a sacred rite, observed apart from any ordinary meal, and accompanied by religious instruction. Dr. Fox would go back of these later observances to the original command of our Lord. He would eliminate all that we do not find in Mark, the earliest gospel. But this would deprive us of the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Prodigal Son, and the discourses of the fourth gospel. McGiffert gives A. D. 52, as the date of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, and this ante-dates Mark's gospel by at least thirteen years. Paul's account of the Lord's Supper at Corinth is therefore an earlier authority than Mark.(f) The responsibility of seeing that the ordinance is properly administered rests with the church as a body; and the pastor is, in this matter, the proper representative and organ of the church. In cases of extreme exigency, however, as where the church has no pastor and no ordained minister can be secured, it is competent for the church to appoint one from its own number to administer the ordinance.1 Cor. 11:2, 23—“Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.... For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread.”Here the responsibility of administering the Lord's Supper is laid upon the body of believers.(g) The frequency with which the Lord's Supper is to be administered is not indicated either by the N. T. precept or by uniform N. T. example. We have instances both of its daily and of its weekly observance. With respect to this, as well as with respect to the accessories of the ordinance, the church is to exercise a sound discretion.Acts 2:46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home[or perhaps,‘in various worship-rooms’]”;20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.”In 1878, thirty-nine churches of the Establishment in London held daily communion; in two churches it was held twice each day. A few churches of the Baptist faith in England and America celebrate the Lord's Supper on each Lord's day. Carlstadt would celebrate the Lord's Supper only in companies of twelve, and held also that every bishop must marry. Reclining on couches, and meeting in the evening, are not commanded; and both, by their inconvenience, might in modern times counteract the design of the ordinance.
(a) The elements are bread and wine.
Although the bread which Jesus broke at the institution of the ordinance was doubtless the unleavened bread of the Passover, there is nothing in the symbolism of the Lord's Supper which necessitates the Romanist use of the wafer. Although the wine which Jesus poured out was doubtless the ordinary fermented juice of the grape, there is nothing in the symbolism of the ordinance which forbids the use of unfermented juice of the grape,—obedience to the command“This do in remembrance of me”(Luke 22:19) requires only that we should use the“fruit of the vine”(Mat. 26:29).Huguenots and Roman Catholics, among Parkman's Pioneers of France in the New World, disputed whether the sacramental bread could be made of the meal of Indian corn. But it is only as food, that the bread is symbolic. Dried fish is used in Greenland. The bread only symbolizes Christ's life and the wine only symbolizes his death. Any food or drink may do the same. It therefore seems a very conscientious but unnecessary literalism, when Adoniram Judson (Life by his Son, 352) writes from Burma:“No wine to be procured in this place, on which account we are unable to meet with the other churches this day in partaking of the Lord's Supper.”For proof that Bible wines, like all other wines, are fermented, see Presb. Rev., 1881:80-114; 1882:78-108, 394-399, 586; Hovey, in Bap. Quar. Rev., April, 1887:152-180.Per contra, see Samson, Bible Wines. On the Scripture Law of Temperance, see Presb. Rev., 1882:287-324.
Although the bread which Jesus broke at the institution of the ordinance was doubtless the unleavened bread of the Passover, there is nothing in the symbolism of the Lord's Supper which necessitates the Romanist use of the wafer. Although the wine which Jesus poured out was doubtless the ordinary fermented juice of the grape, there is nothing in the symbolism of the ordinance which forbids the use of unfermented juice of the grape,—obedience to the command“This do in remembrance of me”(Luke 22:19) requires only that we should use the“fruit of the vine”(Mat. 26:29).
Huguenots and Roman Catholics, among Parkman's Pioneers of France in the New World, disputed whether the sacramental bread could be made of the meal of Indian corn. But it is only as food, that the bread is symbolic. Dried fish is used in Greenland. The bread only symbolizes Christ's life and the wine only symbolizes his death. Any food or drink may do the same. It therefore seems a very conscientious but unnecessary literalism, when Adoniram Judson (Life by his Son, 352) writes from Burma:“No wine to be procured in this place, on which account we are unable to meet with the other churches this day in partaking of the Lord's Supper.”For proof that Bible wines, like all other wines, are fermented, see Presb. Rev., 1881:80-114; 1882:78-108, 394-399, 586; Hovey, in Bap. Quar. Rev., April, 1887:152-180.Per contra, see Samson, Bible Wines. On the Scripture Law of Temperance, see Presb. Rev., 1882:287-324.
(b) The communion is of both kinds,—that is, communicants are to partake both of the bread and of the wine.
The Roman Catholic Church withholds the wine from the laity, although it considers the whole Christ to be present under each of the forms. Christ, however, says:“Drink ye all of it”(Mat. 26:27). To withhold the wine from any believer is disobedience to Christ, and is too easily understood as teaching that the laity have only a portion of the benefits of Christ's death. Calvin:“As to the bread, he simply said‘Take, eat.’Why does he expressly bid themalldrink? And why does Mark explicitly say that‘they all drank of it’(Mark 14:23)?”Bengel: Does not this suggest that, if communion in“one kind alone were sufficient, it is the cup which should be used? The Scripture thus speaks, foreseeing what Rome would do.”See Expositor's Greek Testament on1 Cor. 11:27. In the Greek Church the bread and wine are mingled and are administered to communicants, not to infants only but also to adults, with a spoon.
The Roman Catholic Church withholds the wine from the laity, although it considers the whole Christ to be present under each of the forms. Christ, however, says:“Drink ye all of it”(Mat. 26:27). To withhold the wine from any believer is disobedience to Christ, and is too easily understood as teaching that the laity have only a portion of the benefits of Christ's death. Calvin:“As to the bread, he simply said‘Take, eat.’Why does he expressly bid themalldrink? And why does Mark explicitly say that‘they all drank of it’(Mark 14:23)?”Bengel: Does not this suggest that, if communion in“one kind alone were sufficient, it is the cup which should be used? The Scripture thus speaks, foreseeing what Rome would do.”See Expositor's Greek Testament on1 Cor. 11:27. In the Greek Church the bread and wine are mingled and are administered to communicants, not to infants only but also to adults, with a spoon.
(c) The partaking of these elements is of a festal nature.
The Passover was festal in its nature. Gloom and sadness are foreign to the spirit of the Lord's Supper. The wine is the symbol of the death of Christ, but of that death by which we live. It reminds us that he drank the cup of suffering in order that we might drink the wine of joy. As the bread is broken to sustain our physical life, so Christ's body was broken by thorns and nails and spear to nourish our spiritual life.1 Cor. 11:29—“For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment onto himself, if he discern not the body.”Here the Authorized Version wrongly had“damnation”instead of“judgment.”Not eternal condemnation, but penal judgment in general, is meant. He who partakes“in an unworthy manner”(verse 27),i. e., in hypocrisy, or merely to satisfy bodily appetites, and not discerning the body of Christ of which the bread is the symbol (verse 29), draws down upon him God's judicial sentence. Of this judgment, the frequent sickness and death in the church at Corinth was a token. Seeverses 30-34, and Meyer's Com.; also[pg 961]Gould, in Am. Com. on1 Cor. 11:27—“unworthily”—“This is not to be understood as referring to the unworthiness of the person himself to partake, but to the unworthy manner of partaking.... The failure to recognize practically the symbolism of the elements, and hence the treatment of the Supper as a common meal, is just what the apostle has pointed out as the fault of the Corinthians, and it is what he characterizes as an unworthy eating and drinking.”The Christian therefore should not be deterred from participation in the Lord's Supper by any feeling of his personal unworthiness, so long as he trusts Christ and aims to obey him, for“All the fitness he requireth Is to feel our need of him.”
The Passover was festal in its nature. Gloom and sadness are foreign to the spirit of the Lord's Supper. The wine is the symbol of the death of Christ, but of that death by which we live. It reminds us that he drank the cup of suffering in order that we might drink the wine of joy. As the bread is broken to sustain our physical life, so Christ's body was broken by thorns and nails and spear to nourish our spiritual life.
1 Cor. 11:29—“For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment onto himself, if he discern not the body.”Here the Authorized Version wrongly had“damnation”instead of“judgment.”Not eternal condemnation, but penal judgment in general, is meant. He who partakes“in an unworthy manner”(verse 27),i. e., in hypocrisy, or merely to satisfy bodily appetites, and not discerning the body of Christ of which the bread is the symbol (verse 29), draws down upon him God's judicial sentence. Of this judgment, the frequent sickness and death in the church at Corinth was a token. Seeverses 30-34, and Meyer's Com.; also[pg 961]Gould, in Am. Com. on1 Cor. 11:27—“unworthily”—“This is not to be understood as referring to the unworthiness of the person himself to partake, but to the unworthy manner of partaking.... The failure to recognize practically the symbolism of the elements, and hence the treatment of the Supper as a common meal, is just what the apostle has pointed out as the fault of the Corinthians, and it is what he characterizes as an unworthy eating and drinking.”The Christian therefore should not be deterred from participation in the Lord's Supper by any feeling of his personal unworthiness, so long as he trusts Christ and aims to obey him, for“All the fitness he requireth Is to feel our need of him.”
(d) The communion is a festival of commemoration,—not simply bringing Christ to our remembrance, but making proclamation of his death to the world.
1 Cor. 11:24, 26—“this do in remembrance of me.... For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.”As the Passover commemorated the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and as the Fourth of July commemorates our birth as a nation, so the Lord's Supper commemorates the birth of the church in Christ's death and resurrection. As a mother might bid her children meet over her grave and commemorate her, so Christ bids his people meet and remember him. But subjective remembrance is not its only aim. It is public proclamation also. Whether it brings perceptible blessing to us or not, it is to be observed as a means of confessing Christ, testifying our faith, and publishing the fact of his death to others.
1 Cor. 11:24, 26—“this do in remembrance of me.... For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.”As the Passover commemorated the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and as the Fourth of July commemorates our birth as a nation, so the Lord's Supper commemorates the birth of the church in Christ's death and resurrection. As a mother might bid her children meet over her grave and commemorate her, so Christ bids his people meet and remember him. But subjective remembrance is not its only aim. It is public proclamation also. Whether it brings perceptible blessing to us or not, it is to be observed as a means of confessing Christ, testifying our faith, and publishing the fact of his death to others.
(e) It is to be celebrated by the assembled church. It is not a solitary observance on the part of individuals. No“showing forth”is possible except in company.
Acts 20:7—“gathered together to break bread”;1 Cor. 11:18, 20, 22, 33, 34—“when ye come together in the church ... assemble yourselves together ... have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? ... when ye come together to eat.... If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment.”Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 191-194, claims that inActs 2:46—“breaking bread at home”—where we have οἶκος, not οἶκία, οἶκος is not a private house, but a“worship-room,”and that the phrase should be translated“breaking bread from one worship-room to another,”or“in various worship-rooms.”This meaning seems very apt inActs 5:42—“And every day, in the temple and at home[rather,‘in various worship-rooms’], they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ”;8:3—“But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house[rather,‘every worship-room’]and dragging men and women committed them to prison”;Rom. 16:5—“salute the church that is in their house[rather,‘in their worship-room’]”;Titus 1:11—“men who overthrow whole houses[rather,‘whole worship-rooms’],teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.”Per contra, however, see1 Cor. 11:34—“let him eat at home,”where οἶκος is contrasted with the place of meeting; so also1 Cor. 14:35andActs 20:20, where οἶκος seems to mean a private house.The celebration of the Lord's Supper in each family by itself is not recognized in the New Testament. Stanley, in Nineteenth Century, May, 1878, tells us that as infant communion is forbidden in the Western Church, and evening communion is forbidden by the Roman Church, so solitary communion is forbidden by the English Church, and death-bed communion by the Scottish Church. E. G. Robinson:“No single individual in the New Testament ever celebrates the Lord's Supper by himself.”Mrs. Browning recognized the essentially social nature of the ordinance, when she said that truth was like the bread at the Sacrament—to be passed on. In this the Supper gives us a type of the proper treatment of all the goods of life, both temporal and spiritual.Dr. Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, claims that the Lord's Supper is no more an exclusively church ordinance than is singing or prayer; that the command to observe it was addressed, not to an organized church, but only to individuals; that every meal in the home was to be a Lord's Supper, because Christ was remembered in it. But we reply that Paul's letter with regard to the abuses of the Lord's Supper was addressed, not to individuals, but to“the church of God which is at Corinth.”(1 Cor. 1:2). Paul reproves the Corinthians because in the Lord's Supper each ate without thought of others:“What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not?”(11:22). Each member having appeased his hunger at home, the members of the church“come together to eat”(11:30), as the spiritual body of Christ. All this shows that the celebration of the Lord's Supper was not an appendage to every ordinary meal.[pg 962]InActs 20:7—“upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”—the natural inference is that the Lord's Supper was a sacred rite, observed apart from any ordinary meal, and accompanied by religious instruction. Dr. Fox would go back of these later observances to the original command of our Lord. He would eliminate all that we do not find in Mark, the earliest gospel. But this would deprive us of the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Prodigal Son, and the discourses of the fourth gospel. McGiffert gives A. D. 52, as the date of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, and this ante-dates Mark's gospel by at least thirteen years. Paul's account of the Lord's Supper at Corinth is therefore an earlier authority than Mark.
Acts 20:7—“gathered together to break bread”;1 Cor. 11:18, 20, 22, 33, 34—“when ye come together in the church ... assemble yourselves together ... have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? ... when ye come together to eat.... If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment.”
Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 191-194, claims that inActs 2:46—“breaking bread at home”—where we have οἶκος, not οἶκία, οἶκος is not a private house, but a“worship-room,”and that the phrase should be translated“breaking bread from one worship-room to another,”or“in various worship-rooms.”This meaning seems very apt inActs 5:42—“And every day, in the temple and at home[rather,‘in various worship-rooms’], they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ”;8:3—“But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house[rather,‘every worship-room’]and dragging men and women committed them to prison”;Rom. 16:5—“salute the church that is in their house[rather,‘in their worship-room’]”;Titus 1:11—“men who overthrow whole houses[rather,‘whole worship-rooms’],teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.”Per contra, however, see1 Cor. 11:34—“let him eat at home,”where οἶκος is contrasted with the place of meeting; so also1 Cor. 14:35andActs 20:20, where οἶκος seems to mean a private house.
The celebration of the Lord's Supper in each family by itself is not recognized in the New Testament. Stanley, in Nineteenth Century, May, 1878, tells us that as infant communion is forbidden in the Western Church, and evening communion is forbidden by the Roman Church, so solitary communion is forbidden by the English Church, and death-bed communion by the Scottish Church. E. G. Robinson:“No single individual in the New Testament ever celebrates the Lord's Supper by himself.”Mrs. Browning recognized the essentially social nature of the ordinance, when she said that truth was like the bread at the Sacrament—to be passed on. In this the Supper gives us a type of the proper treatment of all the goods of life, both temporal and spiritual.
Dr. Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, claims that the Lord's Supper is no more an exclusively church ordinance than is singing or prayer; that the command to observe it was addressed, not to an organized church, but only to individuals; that every meal in the home was to be a Lord's Supper, because Christ was remembered in it. But we reply that Paul's letter with regard to the abuses of the Lord's Supper was addressed, not to individuals, but to“the church of God which is at Corinth.”(1 Cor. 1:2). Paul reproves the Corinthians because in the Lord's Supper each ate without thought of others:“What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not?”(11:22). Each member having appeased his hunger at home, the members of the church“come together to eat”(11:30), as the spiritual body of Christ. All this shows that the celebration of the Lord's Supper was not an appendage to every ordinary meal.
InActs 20:7—“upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them”—the natural inference is that the Lord's Supper was a sacred rite, observed apart from any ordinary meal, and accompanied by religious instruction. Dr. Fox would go back of these later observances to the original command of our Lord. He would eliminate all that we do not find in Mark, the earliest gospel. But this would deprive us of the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Prodigal Son, and the discourses of the fourth gospel. McGiffert gives A. D. 52, as the date of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, and this ante-dates Mark's gospel by at least thirteen years. Paul's account of the Lord's Supper at Corinth is therefore an earlier authority than Mark.
(f) The responsibility of seeing that the ordinance is properly administered rests with the church as a body; and the pastor is, in this matter, the proper representative and organ of the church. In cases of extreme exigency, however, as where the church has no pastor and no ordained minister can be secured, it is competent for the church to appoint one from its own number to administer the ordinance.
1 Cor. 11:2, 23—“Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.... For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread.”Here the responsibility of administering the Lord's Supper is laid upon the body of believers.
1 Cor. 11:2, 23—“Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.... For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread.”Here the responsibility of administering the Lord's Supper is laid upon the body of believers.
(g) The frequency with which the Lord's Supper is to be administered is not indicated either by the N. T. precept or by uniform N. T. example. We have instances both of its daily and of its weekly observance. With respect to this, as well as with respect to the accessories of the ordinance, the church is to exercise a sound discretion.
Acts 2:46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home[or perhaps,‘in various worship-rooms’]”;20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.”In 1878, thirty-nine churches of the Establishment in London held daily communion; in two churches it was held twice each day. A few churches of the Baptist faith in England and America celebrate the Lord's Supper on each Lord's day. Carlstadt would celebrate the Lord's Supper only in companies of twelve, and held also that every bishop must marry. Reclining on couches, and meeting in the evening, are not commanded; and both, by their inconvenience, might in modern times counteract the design of the ordinance.
Acts 2:46—“And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home[or perhaps,‘in various worship-rooms’]”;20:7—“And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.”In 1878, thirty-nine churches of the Establishment in London held daily communion; in two churches it was held twice each day. A few churches of the Baptist faith in England and America celebrate the Lord's Supper on each Lord's day. Carlstadt would celebrate the Lord's Supper only in companies of twelve, and held also that every bishop must marry. Reclining on couches, and meeting in the evening, are not commanded; and both, by their inconvenience, might in modern times counteract the design of the ordinance.
3. The Symbolism of the Lord's Supper.The Lord's Supper sets forth, in general, the death of Christ as the sustaining power of the believer's life.A. Expansion of this statement.(a) It symbolizes the death of Christ for our sins.1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mark 14:24—“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many”—the blood upon which the covenant between God and Christ, and so between God and us who are one with Christ, from eternity past was based. The Lord's Supper reminds us of the covenant which ensures our salvation, and of the atonement upon which the covenant was based;cf.Heb. 13:20—“blood of an eternal covenant.”Alex. McLaren:“The suggestion of a violent death, implied in thedoublingof the symbols, by which the body is separated from that of the blood, and still further implied in thebreakingof the bread, is made prominent in the words in reference to the cup. It symbolizes the blood of Jesus which is‘shed.’That shed blood is covenant blood. By it the New Covenant, of which Jeremiah had prophesied, one article of which was,‘Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more,’is sealed and ratified, not for Israel only but for an indefinite‘many,’which is really equivalent to all. Could words more plainly declare that Christ's death was a sacrifice? Can we understand it, according to his own interpretation of it, unless we see in his words here a reference to his previous words (Mat. 20:28) and recognize that in shedding his blood[pg 963]‘for many,’he‘gave his life a ransom for many’? The Lord's Supper is the standing witness, voiced by Jesus himself, that he regarded his death as the very centre of his work, and that he regarded it not merely as a martyrdom, but as a sacrifice by which he put away sins forever. Those who reject that view of that death are sorely puzzled what to make of the Lord's Supper.”(b) It symbolizes our personal appropriation of the benefits of that death.1 Cor. 11:24—“This is my body, which is for you”;cf.1 Cor. 5:7—“Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”; or R. V.—“our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ”; here it is evident not only that the showing forth of the Lord's death is the primary meaning of the ordinance, but that our partaking of the benefits of that death is as clearly taught as the Israelites' deliverance was symbolized in the paschal supper.(c) It symbolizes the method of this appropriation, through union with Christ himself.1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the body of Christ?”Here“is it not a participation”=“does it not symbolize the participation?”SoMat. 26:26—“this is my body”=“this symbolizes my body.”(d) It symbolizes the continuous dependence of the believer for all spiritual life upon the once crucified, now living, Savior, to whom he is thus united.Cf.John 6:53—“Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves”—here is a statement, not with regard to the Lord's Supper, but with regard to spiritual union with Christ, which the Lord's Supper only symbolizes; see page965, (a). Like Baptism, the Lord's Supper presupposes and implies evangelical faith, especially faith in the Deity of Christ; not that all who partake of it realize its full meaning, but that this participation logically implies the five great truths of Christ's preëxistence, his supernatural birth, his vicarious atonement, his literal resurrection, and his living presence with his followers. Because Ralph Waldo Emerson perceived that the Lord's Supper implied Christ's omnipresence and deity, he would no longer celebrate it, and so broke with his church and with the ministry.(e) It symbolizes the sanctification of the Christian through a spiritual reproduction in him of the death and resurrection of the Lord.Rom. 8:10—“And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness”;Phil. 3:10—“that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death; if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead.”The bread of life nourishes; but it transforms me, not I it.(f) It symbolizes the consequent union of Christians in Christ, their head.1 Cor. 10:17—“seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”The Roman Catholic says that bread is the unity of many kernels, the wine the unity of many berries, and all are changed into the body of Christ. We can adopt the former part of the statement, without taking the latter. By being united to Christ, we become united to one another; and the Lord's Supper, as it symbolizes our common partaking of Christ, symbolizes also the consequent oneness of all in whom Christ dwells. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, IX—“As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, and being gathered together became one, so may thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom.”(g) It symbolizes the coming joy and perfection of the kingdom of God.Luke 22:18—“for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”;Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”Like Baptism, which points forward to the resurrection, the Lord's Supper is anticipatory[pg 964]also. It brings before us, not simply death, but life; not simply past sacrifice, but future glory. It points forward to the great festival,“the marriage supper of the Lamb”(Rev. 19:9). Dorner:“Then Christ will keep the Supper anew with us, and the hours of highest solemnity in this life are but a weak foretaste of the powers of the world to come.”See Madison Avenue Lectures, 176-216; The Lord's Supper, a Clerical Symposium, by Pressensé, Luthardt, and English Divines.B. Inferences from this statement.(a) The connection between the Lord's Supper and Baptism consists in this, that they both and equally are symbols of the death of Christ. In Baptism, we show forth the death of Christ as the procuring cause of our new birth into the kingdom of God. In the Lord's Supper, we show forth the death of Christ as the sustaining power of our spiritual life after it has once begun. In the one, we honor the sanctifying power of the death of Christ, as in the other we honor its regenerating power. Thus both are parts of one whole,—setting before us Christ's death for men in its two great purposes and results.If baptism symbolized purification only, there would be no point of connection between the two ordinances. Their common reference to the death of Christ binds the two together.(b) The Lord's Supper is to be often repeated,—as symbolizing Christ's constant nourishment of the soul, whose new birth was signified in Baptism.Yet too frequent repetition may induce superstitious confidence in the value of communion as a mere outward form.(c) The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, is the symbol of a previous state of grace. It has in itself no regenerating and no sanctifying power, but is the symbol by which the relation of the believer to Christ, his sanctifier, is vividly expressed and strongly confirmed.We derive more help from the Lord's Supper than from private prayer, simply because it is anexternalrite, impressing the sense as well as the intellect, celebrated in company with other believers whose faith and devotion help our own, and bringing before us the profoundest truths of Christianity—the death of Christ, and our union with Christ in that death.(d) The blessing received from participation is therefore dependent upon, and proportioned to, the faith of the communicant.In observing the Lord's Supper, we need to discern the body of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:29)—that is, to recognize the spiritual meaning of the ordinance, and the presence of Christ, who through his deputed representatives gives to us the emblems, and who nourishes and quickens our souls as these material things nourish and quicken the body. The faith which thus discerns Christ is the gift of the Holy Spirit.(e) The Lord's Supper expresses primarily the fellowship of the believer, not with his brethren, but with Christ, his Lord.The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, symbolizes fellowship with the brethren only as consequent upon, and incidental to, fellowship with Christ. Just as we are all baptized“into one body”(1 Cor. 12:13) only by being“baptized into Christ”(Rom. 6:3), so we commune with other believers in the Lord's Supper, only as we commune with Christ. Christ's words:“this do in remembrance of me”(1 Cor. 11:24), bid us think, not of our brethren, but of the Lord. Baptism is not a test of personal worthiness. Nor is the Lord's Supper a test of personal worthiness, either our own or that of others. It is not primarily an expression of Christian fellowship. Nowhere in the New Testament is it called a communion of Christians with one another. But it is called a communion of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16)—or, in other words, a participation in him. Hence there is not a single cup, but many:“divide it among yourselves”(Luke 22:17). Here is warrant for the individual[pg 965]communion-cup. Most churches use more than one cup: if more than one, why not many?1 Cor. 11:26—“as often as ye eat ... ye proclaim the Lord's death”—the Lord's Supper is a teaching ordinance, and is to be observed, not simply for the good that comes to the communicant and to his brethren, but for the sake of the witness which it gives to the world that the Christ who died for its sins now lives for its salvation. A. H. Ballard, in The Standard, Aug. 18, 1900, on1 Cor. 11:29—“eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body”—“He who eats and drinks, and does not discern that he is redeemed by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, eats and drinks a double condemnation, because he does not discern the redemption which is symbolized by the things which he eats and drinks. To turn his thought away from that sacrificial body to the company of disciples assembled is a grievous error—the error of all those who exalt the idea of fellowship or communion in the celebration of the ordinance.”The offence of a Christian brother, therefore, even if committed against myself, should not prevent me from remembering Christ and communing with the Savior. I could not commune at all, if I had to vouch for the Christian character of all who sat with me. This does not excuse the church from effort to purge its membership from unworthy participants; it simply declares that the church's failure to do this does not absolve any single member of it from his obligation to observe the Lord's Supper. See Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 285.
The Lord's Supper sets forth, in general, the death of Christ as the sustaining power of the believer's life.
A. Expansion of this statement.(a) It symbolizes the death of Christ for our sins.1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mark 14:24—“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many”—the blood upon which the covenant between God and Christ, and so between God and us who are one with Christ, from eternity past was based. The Lord's Supper reminds us of the covenant which ensures our salvation, and of the atonement upon which the covenant was based;cf.Heb. 13:20—“blood of an eternal covenant.”Alex. McLaren:“The suggestion of a violent death, implied in thedoublingof the symbols, by which the body is separated from that of the blood, and still further implied in thebreakingof the bread, is made prominent in the words in reference to the cup. It symbolizes the blood of Jesus which is‘shed.’That shed blood is covenant blood. By it the New Covenant, of which Jeremiah had prophesied, one article of which was,‘Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more,’is sealed and ratified, not for Israel only but for an indefinite‘many,’which is really equivalent to all. Could words more plainly declare that Christ's death was a sacrifice? Can we understand it, according to his own interpretation of it, unless we see in his words here a reference to his previous words (Mat. 20:28) and recognize that in shedding his blood[pg 963]‘for many,’he‘gave his life a ransom for many’? The Lord's Supper is the standing witness, voiced by Jesus himself, that he regarded his death as the very centre of his work, and that he regarded it not merely as a martyrdom, but as a sacrifice by which he put away sins forever. Those who reject that view of that death are sorely puzzled what to make of the Lord's Supper.”(b) It symbolizes our personal appropriation of the benefits of that death.1 Cor. 11:24—“This is my body, which is for you”;cf.1 Cor. 5:7—“Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”; or R. V.—“our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ”; here it is evident not only that the showing forth of the Lord's death is the primary meaning of the ordinance, but that our partaking of the benefits of that death is as clearly taught as the Israelites' deliverance was symbolized in the paschal supper.(c) It symbolizes the method of this appropriation, through union with Christ himself.1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the body of Christ?”Here“is it not a participation”=“does it not symbolize the participation?”SoMat. 26:26—“this is my body”=“this symbolizes my body.”(d) It symbolizes the continuous dependence of the believer for all spiritual life upon the once crucified, now living, Savior, to whom he is thus united.Cf.John 6:53—“Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves”—here is a statement, not with regard to the Lord's Supper, but with regard to spiritual union with Christ, which the Lord's Supper only symbolizes; see page965, (a). Like Baptism, the Lord's Supper presupposes and implies evangelical faith, especially faith in the Deity of Christ; not that all who partake of it realize its full meaning, but that this participation logically implies the five great truths of Christ's preëxistence, his supernatural birth, his vicarious atonement, his literal resurrection, and his living presence with his followers. Because Ralph Waldo Emerson perceived that the Lord's Supper implied Christ's omnipresence and deity, he would no longer celebrate it, and so broke with his church and with the ministry.(e) It symbolizes the sanctification of the Christian through a spiritual reproduction in him of the death and resurrection of the Lord.Rom. 8:10—“And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness”;Phil. 3:10—“that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death; if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead.”The bread of life nourishes; but it transforms me, not I it.(f) It symbolizes the consequent union of Christians in Christ, their head.1 Cor. 10:17—“seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”The Roman Catholic says that bread is the unity of many kernels, the wine the unity of many berries, and all are changed into the body of Christ. We can adopt the former part of the statement, without taking the latter. By being united to Christ, we become united to one another; and the Lord's Supper, as it symbolizes our common partaking of Christ, symbolizes also the consequent oneness of all in whom Christ dwells. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, IX—“As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, and being gathered together became one, so may thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom.”(g) It symbolizes the coming joy and perfection of the kingdom of God.Luke 22:18—“for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”;Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”Like Baptism, which points forward to the resurrection, the Lord's Supper is anticipatory[pg 964]also. It brings before us, not simply death, but life; not simply past sacrifice, but future glory. It points forward to the great festival,“the marriage supper of the Lamb”(Rev. 19:9). Dorner:“Then Christ will keep the Supper anew with us, and the hours of highest solemnity in this life are but a weak foretaste of the powers of the world to come.”See Madison Avenue Lectures, 176-216; The Lord's Supper, a Clerical Symposium, by Pressensé, Luthardt, and English Divines.
(a) It symbolizes the death of Christ for our sins.
1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mark 14:24—“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many”—the blood upon which the covenant between God and Christ, and so between God and us who are one with Christ, from eternity past was based. The Lord's Supper reminds us of the covenant which ensures our salvation, and of the atonement upon which the covenant was based;cf.Heb. 13:20—“blood of an eternal covenant.”Alex. McLaren:“The suggestion of a violent death, implied in thedoublingof the symbols, by which the body is separated from that of the blood, and still further implied in thebreakingof the bread, is made prominent in the words in reference to the cup. It symbolizes the blood of Jesus which is‘shed.’That shed blood is covenant blood. By it the New Covenant, of which Jeremiah had prophesied, one article of which was,‘Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more,’is sealed and ratified, not for Israel only but for an indefinite‘many,’which is really equivalent to all. Could words more plainly declare that Christ's death was a sacrifice? Can we understand it, according to his own interpretation of it, unless we see in his words here a reference to his previous words (Mat. 20:28) and recognize that in shedding his blood[pg 963]‘for many,’he‘gave his life a ransom for many’? The Lord's Supper is the standing witness, voiced by Jesus himself, that he regarded his death as the very centre of his work, and that he regarded it not merely as a martyrdom, but as a sacrifice by which he put away sins forever. Those who reject that view of that death are sorely puzzled what to make of the Lord's Supper.”
1 Cor. 11:26—“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come”;cf.Mark 14:24—“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many”—the blood upon which the covenant between God and Christ, and so between God and us who are one with Christ, from eternity past was based. The Lord's Supper reminds us of the covenant which ensures our salvation, and of the atonement upon which the covenant was based;cf.Heb. 13:20—“blood of an eternal covenant.”
Alex. McLaren:“The suggestion of a violent death, implied in thedoublingof the symbols, by which the body is separated from that of the blood, and still further implied in thebreakingof the bread, is made prominent in the words in reference to the cup. It symbolizes the blood of Jesus which is‘shed.’That shed blood is covenant blood. By it the New Covenant, of which Jeremiah had prophesied, one article of which was,‘Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more,’is sealed and ratified, not for Israel only but for an indefinite‘many,’which is really equivalent to all. Could words more plainly declare that Christ's death was a sacrifice? Can we understand it, according to his own interpretation of it, unless we see in his words here a reference to his previous words (Mat. 20:28) and recognize that in shedding his blood[pg 963]‘for many,’he‘gave his life a ransom for many’? The Lord's Supper is the standing witness, voiced by Jesus himself, that he regarded his death as the very centre of his work, and that he regarded it not merely as a martyrdom, but as a sacrifice by which he put away sins forever. Those who reject that view of that death are sorely puzzled what to make of the Lord's Supper.”
(b) It symbolizes our personal appropriation of the benefits of that death.
1 Cor. 11:24—“This is my body, which is for you”;cf.1 Cor. 5:7—“Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”; or R. V.—“our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ”; here it is evident not only that the showing forth of the Lord's death is the primary meaning of the ordinance, but that our partaking of the benefits of that death is as clearly taught as the Israelites' deliverance was symbolized in the paschal supper.
1 Cor. 11:24—“This is my body, which is for you”;cf.1 Cor. 5:7—“Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”; or R. V.—“our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ”; here it is evident not only that the showing forth of the Lord's death is the primary meaning of the ordinance, but that our partaking of the benefits of that death is as clearly taught as the Israelites' deliverance was symbolized in the paschal supper.
(c) It symbolizes the method of this appropriation, through union with Christ himself.
1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the body of Christ?”Here“is it not a participation”=“does it not symbolize the participation?”SoMat. 26:26—“this is my body”=“this symbolizes my body.”
1 Cor. 10:16—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of[marg.:‘participation in’]the body of Christ?”Here“is it not a participation”=“does it not symbolize the participation?”SoMat. 26:26—“this is my body”=“this symbolizes my body.”
(d) It symbolizes the continuous dependence of the believer for all spiritual life upon the once crucified, now living, Savior, to whom he is thus united.
Cf.John 6:53—“Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves”—here is a statement, not with regard to the Lord's Supper, but with regard to spiritual union with Christ, which the Lord's Supper only symbolizes; see page965, (a). Like Baptism, the Lord's Supper presupposes and implies evangelical faith, especially faith in the Deity of Christ; not that all who partake of it realize its full meaning, but that this participation logically implies the five great truths of Christ's preëxistence, his supernatural birth, his vicarious atonement, his literal resurrection, and his living presence with his followers. Because Ralph Waldo Emerson perceived that the Lord's Supper implied Christ's omnipresence and deity, he would no longer celebrate it, and so broke with his church and with the ministry.
Cf.John 6:53—“Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves”—here is a statement, not with regard to the Lord's Supper, but with regard to spiritual union with Christ, which the Lord's Supper only symbolizes; see page965, (a). Like Baptism, the Lord's Supper presupposes and implies evangelical faith, especially faith in the Deity of Christ; not that all who partake of it realize its full meaning, but that this participation logically implies the five great truths of Christ's preëxistence, his supernatural birth, his vicarious atonement, his literal resurrection, and his living presence with his followers. Because Ralph Waldo Emerson perceived that the Lord's Supper implied Christ's omnipresence and deity, he would no longer celebrate it, and so broke with his church and with the ministry.
(e) It symbolizes the sanctification of the Christian through a spiritual reproduction in him of the death and resurrection of the Lord.
Rom. 8:10—“And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness”;Phil. 3:10—“that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death; if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead.”The bread of life nourishes; but it transforms me, not I it.
Rom. 8:10—“And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness”;Phil. 3:10—“that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death; if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead.”The bread of life nourishes; but it transforms me, not I it.
(f) It symbolizes the consequent union of Christians in Christ, their head.
1 Cor. 10:17—“seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”The Roman Catholic says that bread is the unity of many kernels, the wine the unity of many berries, and all are changed into the body of Christ. We can adopt the former part of the statement, without taking the latter. By being united to Christ, we become united to one another; and the Lord's Supper, as it symbolizes our common partaking of Christ, symbolizes also the consequent oneness of all in whom Christ dwells. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, IX—“As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, and being gathered together became one, so may thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom.”
1 Cor. 10:17—“seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.”The Roman Catholic says that bread is the unity of many kernels, the wine the unity of many berries, and all are changed into the body of Christ. We can adopt the former part of the statement, without taking the latter. By being united to Christ, we become united to one another; and the Lord's Supper, as it symbolizes our common partaking of Christ, symbolizes also the consequent oneness of all in whom Christ dwells. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, IX—“As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, and being gathered together became one, so may thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom.”
(g) It symbolizes the coming joy and perfection of the kingdom of God.
Luke 22:18—“for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”;Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”Like Baptism, which points forward to the resurrection, the Lord's Supper is anticipatory[pg 964]also. It brings before us, not simply death, but life; not simply past sacrifice, but future glory. It points forward to the great festival,“the marriage supper of the Lamb”(Rev. 19:9). Dorner:“Then Christ will keep the Supper anew with us, and the hours of highest solemnity in this life are but a weak foretaste of the powers of the world to come.”See Madison Avenue Lectures, 176-216; The Lord's Supper, a Clerical Symposium, by Pressensé, Luthardt, and English Divines.
Luke 22:18—“for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come”;Mark 14:25—“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”;Mat. 26:29—“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”
Like Baptism, which points forward to the resurrection, the Lord's Supper is anticipatory[pg 964]also. It brings before us, not simply death, but life; not simply past sacrifice, but future glory. It points forward to the great festival,“the marriage supper of the Lamb”(Rev. 19:9). Dorner:“Then Christ will keep the Supper anew with us, and the hours of highest solemnity in this life are but a weak foretaste of the powers of the world to come.”See Madison Avenue Lectures, 176-216; The Lord's Supper, a Clerical Symposium, by Pressensé, Luthardt, and English Divines.
B. Inferences from this statement.(a) The connection between the Lord's Supper and Baptism consists in this, that they both and equally are symbols of the death of Christ. In Baptism, we show forth the death of Christ as the procuring cause of our new birth into the kingdom of God. In the Lord's Supper, we show forth the death of Christ as the sustaining power of our spiritual life after it has once begun. In the one, we honor the sanctifying power of the death of Christ, as in the other we honor its regenerating power. Thus both are parts of one whole,—setting before us Christ's death for men in its two great purposes and results.If baptism symbolized purification only, there would be no point of connection between the two ordinances. Their common reference to the death of Christ binds the two together.(b) The Lord's Supper is to be often repeated,—as symbolizing Christ's constant nourishment of the soul, whose new birth was signified in Baptism.Yet too frequent repetition may induce superstitious confidence in the value of communion as a mere outward form.(c) The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, is the symbol of a previous state of grace. It has in itself no regenerating and no sanctifying power, but is the symbol by which the relation of the believer to Christ, his sanctifier, is vividly expressed and strongly confirmed.We derive more help from the Lord's Supper than from private prayer, simply because it is anexternalrite, impressing the sense as well as the intellect, celebrated in company with other believers whose faith and devotion help our own, and bringing before us the profoundest truths of Christianity—the death of Christ, and our union with Christ in that death.(d) The blessing received from participation is therefore dependent upon, and proportioned to, the faith of the communicant.In observing the Lord's Supper, we need to discern the body of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:29)—that is, to recognize the spiritual meaning of the ordinance, and the presence of Christ, who through his deputed representatives gives to us the emblems, and who nourishes and quickens our souls as these material things nourish and quicken the body. The faith which thus discerns Christ is the gift of the Holy Spirit.(e) The Lord's Supper expresses primarily the fellowship of the believer, not with his brethren, but with Christ, his Lord.The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, symbolizes fellowship with the brethren only as consequent upon, and incidental to, fellowship with Christ. Just as we are all baptized“into one body”(1 Cor. 12:13) only by being“baptized into Christ”(Rom. 6:3), so we commune with other believers in the Lord's Supper, only as we commune with Christ. Christ's words:“this do in remembrance of me”(1 Cor. 11:24), bid us think, not of our brethren, but of the Lord. Baptism is not a test of personal worthiness. Nor is the Lord's Supper a test of personal worthiness, either our own or that of others. It is not primarily an expression of Christian fellowship. Nowhere in the New Testament is it called a communion of Christians with one another. But it is called a communion of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16)—or, in other words, a participation in him. Hence there is not a single cup, but many:“divide it among yourselves”(Luke 22:17). Here is warrant for the individual[pg 965]communion-cup. Most churches use more than one cup: if more than one, why not many?1 Cor. 11:26—“as often as ye eat ... ye proclaim the Lord's death”—the Lord's Supper is a teaching ordinance, and is to be observed, not simply for the good that comes to the communicant and to his brethren, but for the sake of the witness which it gives to the world that the Christ who died for its sins now lives for its salvation. A. H. Ballard, in The Standard, Aug. 18, 1900, on1 Cor. 11:29—“eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body”—“He who eats and drinks, and does not discern that he is redeemed by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, eats and drinks a double condemnation, because he does not discern the redemption which is symbolized by the things which he eats and drinks. To turn his thought away from that sacrificial body to the company of disciples assembled is a grievous error—the error of all those who exalt the idea of fellowship or communion in the celebration of the ordinance.”The offence of a Christian brother, therefore, even if committed against myself, should not prevent me from remembering Christ and communing with the Savior. I could not commune at all, if I had to vouch for the Christian character of all who sat with me. This does not excuse the church from effort to purge its membership from unworthy participants; it simply declares that the church's failure to do this does not absolve any single member of it from his obligation to observe the Lord's Supper. See Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 285.
(a) The connection between the Lord's Supper and Baptism consists in this, that they both and equally are symbols of the death of Christ. In Baptism, we show forth the death of Christ as the procuring cause of our new birth into the kingdom of God. In the Lord's Supper, we show forth the death of Christ as the sustaining power of our spiritual life after it has once begun. In the one, we honor the sanctifying power of the death of Christ, as in the other we honor its regenerating power. Thus both are parts of one whole,—setting before us Christ's death for men in its two great purposes and results.
If baptism symbolized purification only, there would be no point of connection between the two ordinances. Their common reference to the death of Christ binds the two together.
If baptism symbolized purification only, there would be no point of connection between the two ordinances. Their common reference to the death of Christ binds the two together.
(b) The Lord's Supper is to be often repeated,—as symbolizing Christ's constant nourishment of the soul, whose new birth was signified in Baptism.
Yet too frequent repetition may induce superstitious confidence in the value of communion as a mere outward form.
Yet too frequent repetition may induce superstitious confidence in the value of communion as a mere outward form.
(c) The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, is the symbol of a previous state of grace. It has in itself no regenerating and no sanctifying power, but is the symbol by which the relation of the believer to Christ, his sanctifier, is vividly expressed and strongly confirmed.
We derive more help from the Lord's Supper than from private prayer, simply because it is anexternalrite, impressing the sense as well as the intellect, celebrated in company with other believers whose faith and devotion help our own, and bringing before us the profoundest truths of Christianity—the death of Christ, and our union with Christ in that death.
We derive more help from the Lord's Supper than from private prayer, simply because it is anexternalrite, impressing the sense as well as the intellect, celebrated in company with other believers whose faith and devotion help our own, and bringing before us the profoundest truths of Christianity—the death of Christ, and our union with Christ in that death.
(d) The blessing received from participation is therefore dependent upon, and proportioned to, the faith of the communicant.
In observing the Lord's Supper, we need to discern the body of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:29)—that is, to recognize the spiritual meaning of the ordinance, and the presence of Christ, who through his deputed representatives gives to us the emblems, and who nourishes and quickens our souls as these material things nourish and quicken the body. The faith which thus discerns Christ is the gift of the Holy Spirit.
In observing the Lord's Supper, we need to discern the body of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:29)—that is, to recognize the spiritual meaning of the ordinance, and the presence of Christ, who through his deputed representatives gives to us the emblems, and who nourishes and quickens our souls as these material things nourish and quicken the body. The faith which thus discerns Christ is the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(e) The Lord's Supper expresses primarily the fellowship of the believer, not with his brethren, but with Christ, his Lord.
The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, symbolizes fellowship with the brethren only as consequent upon, and incidental to, fellowship with Christ. Just as we are all baptized“into one body”(1 Cor. 12:13) only by being“baptized into Christ”(Rom. 6:3), so we commune with other believers in the Lord's Supper, only as we commune with Christ. Christ's words:“this do in remembrance of me”(1 Cor. 11:24), bid us think, not of our brethren, but of the Lord. Baptism is not a test of personal worthiness. Nor is the Lord's Supper a test of personal worthiness, either our own or that of others. It is not primarily an expression of Christian fellowship. Nowhere in the New Testament is it called a communion of Christians with one another. But it is called a communion of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16)—or, in other words, a participation in him. Hence there is not a single cup, but many:“divide it among yourselves”(Luke 22:17). Here is warrant for the individual[pg 965]communion-cup. Most churches use more than one cup: if more than one, why not many?1 Cor. 11:26—“as often as ye eat ... ye proclaim the Lord's death”—the Lord's Supper is a teaching ordinance, and is to be observed, not simply for the good that comes to the communicant and to his brethren, but for the sake of the witness which it gives to the world that the Christ who died for its sins now lives for its salvation. A. H. Ballard, in The Standard, Aug. 18, 1900, on1 Cor. 11:29—“eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body”—“He who eats and drinks, and does not discern that he is redeemed by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, eats and drinks a double condemnation, because he does not discern the redemption which is symbolized by the things which he eats and drinks. To turn his thought away from that sacrificial body to the company of disciples assembled is a grievous error—the error of all those who exalt the idea of fellowship or communion in the celebration of the ordinance.”The offence of a Christian brother, therefore, even if committed against myself, should not prevent me from remembering Christ and communing with the Savior. I could not commune at all, if I had to vouch for the Christian character of all who sat with me. This does not excuse the church from effort to purge its membership from unworthy participants; it simply declares that the church's failure to do this does not absolve any single member of it from his obligation to observe the Lord's Supper. See Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 285.
The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, symbolizes fellowship with the brethren only as consequent upon, and incidental to, fellowship with Christ. Just as we are all baptized“into one body”(1 Cor. 12:13) only by being“baptized into Christ”(Rom. 6:3), so we commune with other believers in the Lord's Supper, only as we commune with Christ. Christ's words:“this do in remembrance of me”(1 Cor. 11:24), bid us think, not of our brethren, but of the Lord. Baptism is not a test of personal worthiness. Nor is the Lord's Supper a test of personal worthiness, either our own or that of others. It is not primarily an expression of Christian fellowship. Nowhere in the New Testament is it called a communion of Christians with one another. But it is called a communion of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16)—or, in other words, a participation in him. Hence there is not a single cup, but many:“divide it among yourselves”(Luke 22:17). Here is warrant for the individual[pg 965]communion-cup. Most churches use more than one cup: if more than one, why not many?
1 Cor. 11:26—“as often as ye eat ... ye proclaim the Lord's death”—the Lord's Supper is a teaching ordinance, and is to be observed, not simply for the good that comes to the communicant and to his brethren, but for the sake of the witness which it gives to the world that the Christ who died for its sins now lives for its salvation. A. H. Ballard, in The Standard, Aug. 18, 1900, on1 Cor. 11:29—“eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body”—“He who eats and drinks, and does not discern that he is redeemed by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, eats and drinks a double condemnation, because he does not discern the redemption which is symbolized by the things which he eats and drinks. To turn his thought away from that sacrificial body to the company of disciples assembled is a grievous error—the error of all those who exalt the idea of fellowship or communion in the celebration of the ordinance.”
The offence of a Christian brother, therefore, even if committed against myself, should not prevent me from remembering Christ and communing with the Savior. I could not commune at all, if I had to vouch for the Christian character of all who sat with me. This does not excuse the church from effort to purge its membership from unworthy participants; it simply declares that the church's failure to do this does not absolve any single member of it from his obligation to observe the Lord's Supper. See Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 285.