That it is an ordinance, is evident, in that it is founded on a divine
command; as appears from the words of institution, in Matt. xxvi. 26,
27. _Take eat, this is my body; and he took the cup, and gave it to
them, saying, Drink ye all of it_, &c. And this is also intimated by the
apostle, when, speaking particularly concerning it, as also the manner
in which it is to be performed, he says, _I have received of the Lord,
that which also I delivered unto you_, 1 Cor. xi. 23. Moreover, there is
a blessing annexed to our partaking of it in a right manner; which may
plainly be inferred from the apostle’s distinguishing those who receive
it _worthily_, from others that receive it _unworthily_, or in an
unbecoming manner; of whom the former are said to _come together for the
better_, the latter _for the worse_, ver. 17. and to partake of the
Lord’s supper for the better, is to partake of it for our spiritual
advantage, which supposes, that there are some blessings annexed to it,
which render it not only a duty, but an ordinance, or means of grace.
And, that it is a gospel-ordinance of the New Testament, appears from
the time of its being instituted by our Saviour, as well as the end and
design thereof. It is particularly intimated, that Christ instituted
this ordinance immediately before his last sufferings, as a memorial of
his dying love. Thus the apostle says, _The same night in which he was
betrayed, he took bread_, ver. 23. And that it was designed to continue
as a standing ordinance in the church throughout all ages, appears from
what he farther adds, _As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this
cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death, till he come_, ver. 26.
The contrary to this is maintained by some modern enthusiasts, who
deny it to be an ordinance, as they also do baptism; concluding that
no ceremony, or significant sign, is consistent with the
gospel-dispensation. And as for what the apostle says concerning our
_shewing forth the Lord’s death till he come_, they suppose, that
hereby is meant, till he comes by the effusion of the Spirit; and
therefore, if it was an ordinance at first, it ceased to be so when
the Spirit was poured forth on the church, in the beginning of the
gospel-dispensation. To this it may be replied,
1. That ceremonial institutions are not inconsistent with the
gospel-dispensation, inasmuch as they may not be designed to signify
some benefits to be procured by Christ, as they did, which were
instituted under the ceremonial law; but they may be considered as
rememorative signs of the work of redemption, which has been brought to
perfection by him.
2. When the apostle, in the scripture but now mentioned, says, that _we
shew the Lord’s death till he come_, it cannot be meant concerning his
coming in the plentiful effusion of the Spirit; inasmuch as this
privilege was conferred on the church in the apostle’s days, at the same
time, when he speaks of their shewing forth his death. Therefore,
doubtless, he intends thereby Christ’s second coming, when this, and all
other ordinances, which are now observed in the church, as adapted to
the present imperfect state thereof, shall cease; we must therefore
conclude from hence, that it was designed to be continued in the church
in all ages, as it is at this day.
II. We are to consider the persons by whom this ordinance is to be
administered; and these are only such as are lawfully called, and set
apart to the pastoral office, whose work is to feed the church, not only
by the preaching of the word, but by the administration of the
sacraments, which are ordinances for their faith, in which they are said
to receive, and spiritually feed upon Christ and his benefits; upon
which account God promises to _give his people pastors according to his
own heart, who should feed them with knowledge and understanding_, Jer.
iii. 15. Now that none but these are appointed to administer this
ordinance, is evident in that they, who partake of it, are said to have
communion with him, and with one another therein, for their mutual
edification and spiritual advantage; therefore it doth not belong to
mankind in general, but the church in particular. And, to prevent
confusion therein, Christ has appointed one, or more proper officers in
his churches, to whom the management of this work is committed; who are
called hereunto, by the providence of God, and the consent and desire of
the church, to whom they are to minister.
III. We are now to consider the matter, or the outward elements to be
used in the Lord’s supper; and these are bread and wine. Thus it is
said, _Jesus took bread_, Matt. xxvi. 26. and _he also took the cup_;
which, by a metonymy, is put for the wine: For, our Saviour referring to
this action, speaks of his _drinking the fruit of the vine_, ver. 29. As
for the bread that is to be used in this ordinance, there was a very
warm debate between the Latin and Greek church concerning it; the
former, as the Papists do at this day, concluding it absolutely
necessary, that it should be unleavened bread, inasmuch as that kind of
bread was used by our Lord, when he first instituted it, which was at
the time of the passover, when no leaven was to be found in their
houses. And they make it also a significant sign of the sincerity and
truth with which the Lord’s supper ought to be eaten; for which, they
refer to what the apostle says, in 1 Cor. v. 8. _Let as keep the feast,
not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness;
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth._ But this seems
only to be an allusion to the use of unleavened bread in the passover;
which, it may be, might have a typical reference to that sincerity and
truth with which all the ordinances of God are to be engaged in; but it
does not sufficiently appear that he intends hereby that the bread used
in the Lord’s supper should be of this kind, or, that it was designed to
signify the frame of spirit with which this ordinance is to be
celebrated.
On the other hand, the Greek church thought that the bread ought to be
leavened, according to our common practice at this day, it being the
same that was used at other times. And this seems most eligible, as it
puts a just difference between the bread used in the passover, which was
a part of the ceremonial law, and a gospel-institution, that is distinct
from it. But, I think, there is no need to debate either side of the
question with too much warmth, it being a matter of no great importance.
As for the wine that is to be used in this ordinance, it is a necessary
part thereof; and therefore the Papists are guilty of sacrilege in
withholding the cup from the common people[97].
IV. We are now to consider what the minister is to do, antecedent to the
church’s partaking of the Lord’s supper: He is to set apart the outward
elements of bread and wine from a common, to this particular holy use.
Upon which account it may be said to be _sanctified by the word of God
and prayer_, 1 Tim. iv. 5. The words of institution contain an
intimation that these elements are to be used in this ordinance, by
Christ’s appointment; without which, no significant sign could be used
in any religious matters. And, as for prayer, this is agreeable to
Christ’s practice; for, he _took bread and blessed it_, or prayed for a
blessing on it; and as the apostle expresses it; this was accompanied
with thanksgiving, as he says; _When he had given thanks he brake it_,
Matt. xxvi. 26. 1 Cor. xi. 24. which is agreeable to the nature and
design of the ordinance, as herein we pray for the best of blessings,
and express our thankfulness to him for the benefits of Christ’s
redemption.
Here I cannot but observe how the Papists pervert this ordinance in the
manner of consecrating the bread, which the priest does only by
repeating these words in Latin; _This is my body_; and from thence they
take occasion to advance the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation; and
suppose, that, by these words pronounced, the bread is changed into the
body and blood of Christ; which they assert, contrary to all sense and
reason, as well as the end and design of the ordinance; and from hence
it will follow, that man has a power to make the body and blood of
Christ; and another consequence thereof, will be, that the human nature
of Christ is omnipresent, which is inconsistent with a finite nature,
and those properties that belong to it as such; from whence it is to be
concluded, that it is no where else but in heaven; and it involves in it
the greatest contradiction to suppose that it is bread, and having all
the qualities thereof; and yet our senses must be so far imposed on, as
that we must believe that it is not so, but Christ’s body. It also
supposes, that Christ has as many bodies as there are wafers in the
world; which is a monstrous absurdity. It likewise confounds the sign
with the thing signified, and is very opposite to the sense of those
words of scripture, _This is my body_; which implies no more, than that
the bread, which is the same in itself, after the words of consecration,
as it was before, is an external symbol of Christ’s body, that is, of
the sufferings which he endured therein for his people.
V. We are now to consider the actions both of the minister and the
church, when engaged in this ordinance, _viz._ breaking, distributing,
eating the bread, pouring forth, and drinking the wine, for the ends
appointed by Christ, in instituting this ordinance. Whether our Saviour
gave the bread and wine to every one of the disciples in particular, is
not sufficiently determined by the words of institution: For, though
Matthew and Mark say, _He gave the bread and the cup to the disciples_,
Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. and Mark xiv. 22, 23. Yet Luke speaking either
concerning the cup used in the passover, or that in the Lord’s supper,
represents our Saviour as saying to his disciples, _Take this and divide
it among yourselves_, Luke xxii. 17. which seems to intimate that he
distributed it to one or more of them, to be conveyed to the rest, that
they might divide it among themselves; which is agreeable to the
practice of several of the reformed churches in our day, and seems most
expedient in case the number of the communicants is very great, and the
elements cannot be so conveniently given by the pastor into the hand of
every one.
Here I may observe how the Papists pervert this part of the Lord’s
supper; inasmuch as they will not permit the common people to touch the
bread with their hands, lest they should defile it; but the priest puts
it into their mouths; for which purpose it is made up into small, round
wafers; and the people are ordered to take great care that they do not
use their teeth in chewing it; for that would be, as it were, a
crucifying Christ afresh, as offering a kind of violence to what they
call his body. But these things are so very absurd and unscriptural,
that they confute themselves. And their consecrating a wafer to be
reserved in a case prepared for that purpose, and set upon the altar in
the church, to be worshipped by all that come near it, savours of gross
superstition and idolatry.
We may farther observe, that they deny the people the cup in this
ordinance, but not the priests; for what reason, it is hard to
determine. And, they mix the wine with water; which, though it does not
seem to be agreeable to Christ’s institution, yet it was often practised
by the ancient church, from whence they took it; and their making this a
sacramental sign of Christ’s divine and human nature, united together in
one person, is much more unwarrantable; nor can I approve of what others
suppose, viz. that it signifies the blood and water that came out of his
side when he was pierced on the cross. And, I can hardly think some
Protestants altogether free from the charge of superstition, when they
so tenaciously adhere to the use of red wine, as bearing some small
resemblance to the colour of Christ’s blood; for which reason others
chuse to bear their testimony against this ungrounded opinion, by the
using of white wine, without supposing that any thing is signified by it
more than by red; and others chuse to use one sort at one time, and
another at another, to signify that this is an indifferent matter; and
these, I think, are most in the right.
Moreover, the practice of the Papists, and some others, in receiving the
Lord’s supper fasting, to the end that the consecrated bread may not be
mixed with undigested food, is not only unwarrantable, but
superstitious, as well as contrary to what we read concerning our
Saviour and his apostles partaking of the Lord’s supper in the first
institution thereof, immediately after having eaten the passover, and to
what the apostle suggests, when he reproves the church at Corinth, for
eating and drinking to excess immediately before they partook of the
Lord’s supper; upon which occasion he advises them _to eat and drink_
(though with moderation) _in their own houses_, 1 Cor. xi. 21, 22.
Again, the administring the Lord’s supper privately, as the Papists and
others do, to sick people, seems to be contrary to the design of its
being a church-ordinance; and when, to give countenance to this
practice, it is styled, as by the former of these, a viaticum, or means
to convey the soul, if it should soon after depart out of the body, to
heaven, they are much more remote from our Saviour’s design in
instituting this ordinance; neither do they rightly understand the sense
of the scripture, from whence they infer the necessity thereof, _except
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life
in you_, John vi. 53. when they apply it to this purpose.
There is another thing that must not be wholly passed over, viz. the
various gestures used in receiving the Lord’s supper. The Papists not
only receive it kneeling; but, they allege, that they ought to do so, as
being obliged to adore the body and blood of Christ, which, as they
absurdly suppose, is really present, inasmuch as the bread is
transubstantiated, or turned into it. And the Lutherans, with equal
absurdity assert, that the body of Christ, is really, though invisibly,
present in the bread; which is what they call consubstantiation. Some
other Protestants, indeed, plead for the receiving it kneeling, as
supposing Christ to be spiritually, though not corporally, present
therein; and therefore they do not worship the bread and wine, but our
Saviour; which, they suppose, they ought to do with this becoming
reverence.
What I would take leave to say, in answer to this, is, that we humbly
hope and trust, that Christ, according to his promise, is present with
his people in all his ordinances; yet, it is not supposed that we are
obliged to engage in every one of them kneeling. But that which
determines the faith and practice of all other reformed churches, who do
not use this gesture in the Lord’s supper, is, because it is contrary to
the example of our Saviour and his apostles, when it was first
celebrated; which ought to be a rule to the churches in all succeeding
ages.
If it be said, that this is a gesture most agreeable to prayer, or, at
least, that sitting is not so. To this it may be replied, that it is not
an ordinance principally or only designed for prayer; for, whatever
prayers we put up to God therein, are short, ejaculatory, and mixed with
other meditations, which may be performed with an awful reverence of the
divine majesty, such as we ought to have in other acts of religious
worship, though we do not use that gesture of kneeling. And besides, we
think ourselves obliged to receive the Lord’s supper sitting, that being
a table gesture in use among us, in like manner as that which our
Saviour and his apostles used, was among the eastern nations.
As for the reformed Gallican churches, they receive it for the most
part, standing; which, being a medium between both extremes, they
suppose to be most eligible. But this not being a table-gesture, nor, in
that respect, conformed to that which was used by our Saviour and his
apostles, I cannot think it warrantable. Nevertheless, when the gesture
of standing or sitting is made a significant sign as some do the former,
of our being servants, ready to obey the will of Christ our great Lord
and Master; or, as others explain it, as signifying our being travellers
to the heavenly country; and the latter, _viz._ sitting, of our
familiarity, or communion with Christ. These are rather the result of
human invention, than founded on a divine institution, since we have not
the least account in scripture, of these things being signified thereby.
This leads us to consider,
VI. The thing signified in this ordinance, and in what respect Christ is
said to be present therein, together with the benefits expected from
him, as we are said to feed upon him by faith for our spiritual
nourishment and growth in grace. I cannot but think that the general
design hereof, is not much unlike to that which was ordained under the
ceremonial law, in which, after the sacrifice was offered, part of it
was reserved to be _eaten in the holy place_, Lev. vi. 16. which was a
significant feast upon a sacrifice. In like manner, the Lord’s supper,
which comes in the room of the passover, is ordained to be a feast on
Christ’s sacrifice; so the apostle styles it, when he says, _Christ, our
passover, is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast_, &c. 1
Cor. v. 7, 8. The fiducial application of Christ, and the benefits of
his death, is the principal thing to be considered in this
gospel-festival. However, there are some cautions necessary to be
observed with respect to the things signified therein, as what may be
useful to us that our faith may be exercised in a right manner.
Therefore let it be considered,
1. That though the Lord’s supper was instituted in commemoration of
Christ’s love, expressed in his death, which was the last and most
bitter part of his sufferings for our redemption. Yet he did not design
hereby to exclude his other sufferings in life; nor, indeed, his whole
course of obedience from his incarnation to his death; since it is very
evident that the death of Christ is often considered in scripture, by a
synecdoche, as denoting the whole course of obedience, both active and
passive, which is the matter of our justification; and therefore is to
be the object on which our faith is to be conversant in the Lord’s
supper, as well as his sufferings in, or immediately before his death.
2. When Christ’s sufferings upon the cross are said to be signified by
the bread and wine; we are not to conclude that these sufferings are to
be so distinctly or separately considered, as that the bread broken, is
designed to signify the pains that he endured upon the cross, when his
body was as it were broken, its tendons, nerves, and fibres snapped
asunder, and his joints dislocated, by being stretched thereon; and the
wine poured forth, to signify the shedding his blood when his hands and
feet were pierced with the nails, and his side with the spear, as some
suppose; since all these things are to be made the subjects of our
affectionate meditation in every part of this ordinance, while we are
taken up with the contemplation of his last sufferings. And this seems
to give countenance to the practice of many of the reformed churches, in
consecrating and distributing the bread and wine together; though it is
true, many think, on the other hand, that the elements are to be
separately consecrated, as well as distributed, it being most agreeable
to what is said concerning Christ’s blessing the bread, and giving it to
his disciples, and afterwards taking the cup, and giving it to them,
Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. However, if this be allowed of, it is not necessary
for us to infer from hence, that each of these elements are designed to
signify some distinct parts of Christ’s sufferings on the cross, but
only that the ordinance is to be still continued, the whole including in
it two external and visible signs to be used, each of which signify the
means whereby he procured our redemption; and, indeed, when the wine is
poured forth, and set apart for another part of this ordinance, we are
not so much to enter on a new subject in our meditation, though the sign
be different from that of the bread, as to proceed in thinking on, and
improving the love of Christ, in his _humbling himself, and becoming
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross_, Phil. ii. 8. and all
this is signified by this sign, as well as the other, neither of which
are adapted to this end, otherwise than by divine appointment.
3. We must take heed that we do not make more significant signs in the
bread and wine than Christ has done; as some suppose, that almost every
ingredient or action used in making them, is to be applied to signify
some things that he has done or suffered for our redemption. It is a
very great liberty that some take in expatiating on this subject, and
applying it to this ordinance. We have a specimen hereof contained in an
hymn, composed to be sung as a thanksgiving after the receiving the
Lord’s supper[98]; in which the corn, as first living and growing, and
afterwards cut down, and by threshing, separated from the husk, and then
ground in the mill, and baked in the oven, are all made significant
signs of the sufferings and torments which our Saviour endured. And the
corn being united in one loaf, is made a sign of the union between
Christ and his church. In like manner the grapes being gathered,
pressed, and made into wine, is supposed to signify our spiritual joy,
arising from Christ’s shedding his blood. And, as many grapes make one
vine, so believers should be united by faith and love. What lengths is
it possible for the wit and fancy of men to run, when they have a
fruitful invention, and are disposed to make significant signs, and
apply them to this ordinance without a divine warrant!
4. When we meditate on Christ’s sufferings, our faith is not to rest in,
or principally be fixed on the grievousness of them, as Dr. Goodwin
observes[99]; so that we should only endeavour hereby to have our hearts
moved to a relenting, and compassion expressed towards him, and
indignation against the Jews that crucified him, together with an
admiring of his noble and heroical love herein; so that if persons can
get their hearts thus affected, they judge and account this to be grace;
whereas, it is no more than what the like tragical story of some great
and noble personage (full of heroical virtues and ingenuity; yet
inhumanly and ungratefully used) doth ordinarily work in ingenuous
spirits, who read or hear of it; which, when it reacheth no higher, it
is so far from being faith, that it is but a carnal and fleshly
devotion; and Christ himself, at his suffering, found fault with, as not
being spiritual, when he says, _Daughters of Jerusalem weep not for me,
but for yourselves and for your children_, Luke xxiii. 28. that is, not
so much for this, when you see me thus unworthily handled by those for
whom I die, as for yourselves.
Moreover, he farther adds, that it was not the malice of the Jews, the
falseness of Judas, the fearfulness of Pilate, the iniquity of the times
he fell into, that wrought our Saviour’s death; God the Father had an
higher design herein: And this our faith is constantly to be conversant
about, considering it as the result of an eternal agreement between the
Father and the Son, and of that covenant which he came into the world to
fulfil; and his being made sin for us, to take away our sins by the
atonement which he made hereby. And, besides this, we may add, that the
highest and most affecting consideration in Christ’s sufferings, ought
to contain in it the idea of his being a divine person, which is the
only thing that argued them sufficient to answer the great ends designed
thereby, as it rendered them of infinite value; and it was upon this
account that his condescension expressed herein, might truly be said to
be infinite. These things, I say, we are principally to rest in, when we
meditate on Christ’s sufferings in this ordinance; though the other,
which are exceedingly moving and affecting in their kind, are not to be
passed over; since the Holy Ghost has, for this end, given a particular
account thereof in the gospels, not barely as an historical relation of
what was done to him, but as a convincing evidence of the greatness of
his love to us.