THE LORD'S SUPPER--CONTINUED.
In the former chapter we made some preliminary observations,
intended to be helpful, as guards against false conclusions, and as
guides to a correct understanding of the subject under consideration.
It is important that we always keep these in mind in our study of the
doctrine of the Lord's Supper; Let us ever keep before us therefore
the _Author_ or _Founder_ of this institution, the _time_ and
_circumstances_ of the institution, and its _testamentary_ character.
We are now ready to inquire further into the _nature_ and
_meaning_ of this holy ordinance. And in order to determine this
we desire to go directly to the law and to the testimony. We want to
know, first of all: what does the Word of God teach on the subject?
Before we proceed, however, to note and examine the passages of
Scripture bearing on the matter, let us recall what we said, as to the
interpretation of Scripture, in one of the chapters on the Sacrament
of Baptism. We there stated that our Church has certain plain and safe
principles of interpretation that are always to guide the searcher
after the truth of God's word, viz.:
1. "A passage of Scripture is always to be taken in its plain,
natural and literal sense, unless there is something in the text
itself, or in the context, that clearly indicates that it is meant to
be figurative."
2. "A passage is never to be torn from its connection, but it is
to be studied in connection with what goes before and follows after."
3. "Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture, the dark
passages are to be compared with the more clear, bearing on the same
subject."
4. "We can never be fully certain that a doctrine is Scriptural
until we have examined and compared all that the Word says on the
subject."
On these principles we wish to examine what the Word teaches as
to the nature of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. We note first the
accounts of the institution as given by the three Evangelists,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In Matthew xxvi. 26-28, we read, _"Jesus
took bread and blessed it and brake it, and gave it to the disciples
and said; 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and gave
thanks and gave it to, them saying: 'Drink ye all of it. For this is
My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the
remission of sins.'"_ With this the accounts in Mark xix. 22-24,
and in Luke xxii. 19, 20, substantially agree. There is a slight
variation of the words, but the substance is the same.
We notice only this difference: Luke adds the words, "_This do
in remembrance of Me_." On this point let us notice, in passing,
that St. Luke's was the last written of the three. The Gospels of
Matthew and Mark had been written and were read and used in the
churches several years before St. Luke's. And yet the two former do
not contain the words, "_Do this in remembrance of Me_." Now we
submit right here, if to _remember_ Christ were all that is in
this sacrament, or even the chief thing, why did those who wrote the
first Gospels, and knew that there were no others, leave out these
words? But we go on.
Almost thirty years after the time of the institution of this
sacrament, the great apostle of the Gentiles wrote a letter to the
Church at Corinth. That Church was made up of a mixed multitude--Jews
and Gentiles, freemen and slaves. Many of them were neither clear nor
sound on points of Christian doctrine and practice. In his fatherly
and affectionate letters to the members of this Church, Paul, among
other things, gives them instruction concerning this sacrament; and,
lest some of them might perhaps suppose that he is giving them merely
his own wisdom and speculation, he takes especial care to disavow
this: "_For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered
unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed,
took bread_," etc., giving in substance the same words of institution
as given by the Evangelists (1 Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25).
After thus giving them the words of institution, Paul goes on to
instruct them about worthy and unworthy communing. In these
instructions we cannot help but notice how he takes the real presence
of Christ's body and blood for granted all the way through. Notice his
language. Verse 27: _"Whosoever shall eat of this bread and drink of
this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood
of the Lord."_ Verse 29: _"For he that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning
the Lord's body."_ Going back to chapter ten, verse sixteen, we
find the Apostle giving the doctrine of the Lord's Supper in a few
words thus: _"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the
communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not
the communion of the body of Christ?"_
We have now noted all the passages that speak directly on this
subject. There are other strong passages that are often quoted in
defence of the doctrine of the real presence, and which we doubtless
have a right to use in corroboration of those above quoted. We refer
to John vi. 53-56: _"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the
flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life ... for
my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth
my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him."_
As it is a disputed point, however, whether this passage refers
to the Lord's Supper or not, we are willing to waive it here. We are
content to take those passages quoted above, which every one
acknowledges as referring directly to our subject. These we would have
the reader carefully examine. Note particularly the language, the
words employed. In the four accounts given of the institution, three
by the Evangelists and one by Paul, we have the same clear, plain
words concerning the bread and wine--words of the last will and
testament of the Son of God, our Saviour--"_This is my body." "This is
my blood of the New Testament_;" or "_the New Testament in my blood_."
Note the language of Paul: _"Guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord." "Not discerning the Lord's body."_ The cup is called _the
communion of the blood_, and the bread, _the communion of the body_ of
Christ. The word communion is made up of two Latin words, _con_ and
_unio_, meaning union with, or connection with. The marginal reading
in our family Bibles, as well as in the revised version, is
"participation in." The plain English of the verse then is, the bread
is a participation in, or a connection with Christ's body, and the
wine with His blood.
We are now ready to take all these passages together, to compare
them one with another, and to ask, What do they teach? What is the
Bible doctrine of the Lord's Supper? Is it transubstantiation? Is it
consubstantiation? Is it that the bread and wine are mere
representations or memorials of the absent body and blood of Christ?
Or do these passages teach "That the body and blood of Christ are
truly present under the form of bread and wine and are communicated to
those that eat in the Lord's Supper?" (Augsburg Confession, Art. X.)