ordained to be a sacrifice, and that in it Christ's body and blood are
present under the forms of bread and wine? _Most certainly not!_ When
the Lord Jesus said to the disciples, "This is my Body," and "this is my
Blood," He evidently meant, "This bread in my hand is an emblem of my
Body, and this cup of wine in my hand contains an emblem of my Blood."
The disciples were accustomed to hear Him use such language. They
remembered His saying, "The field _is_ the world," "The good seed _are_
the children of the kingdom." (Matt. xiii. 38.) It never entered into
their minds that He meant to say He was holding His own body and His own
blood in His hands, and literally giving them His literal body and blood
to eat and drink. Not one of the writers of the New Testament ever
speaks of the sacrament as a sacrifice, or calls the Lord's Table an
altar, or even hints that a Christian minister is a sacrificing priest.
The universal doctrine of the New Testament is that after the one
offering of Christ there remains no more need of sacrifice.[2]
2: If any one fancies that St. Paul's words to the Hebrews, "We have an
altar," are a proof that the Lord's table is an altar, I advise him to
read what Waterland, no mean theologian, says on the
subject:--"Christians have an altar whereof they partake. That altar is
Christ our Lord, who is Altar, Priest, and Sacrifice, all in
One."--_Waterland's Works_, Vol. V., 268. Oxford edition.
Does the English Prayer-book warrant any Churchman in saying that the
Lord's Supper was meant to be a sacrifice, and that Christ's body and
blood are present under the forms of bread and wine? Once more I reply,
_Most certainly not!_ Not once is the word _altar_ to be found in the
Prayer-book: not once is the Lord's Supper called a _sacrifice_.
Throughout the Communion Service the one idea of the ordinance
continually pressed on our attention is that of a "remembrance" of
Christ's death. As to any presence of Christ's natural body and blood
under the forms of bread and wine, the rubric at the end of the Service
gives the most flat and distinct contradiction to the idea. That rubric
expressly asserts that "the natural body and blood of Christ are in
heaven, and not here." Those many Churchmen, so-called, who delight in
talking of the "altar," the "sacrifice," the "priest," and the "real
presence" in the Lord's Supper, would do well to remember that they are
using language which is entirely unused by the Church of England.
The point before us is one of vast importance. Let us lay hold upon it
firmly, and never let it go. It is the very point on which our Reformers
had their sharpest controversy with the Romanists, and went to the
stake, rather than give way. Sooner than admit that the Lord's Supper
was a sacrifice, they cheerfully laid down their lives. To bring back
the doctrine of the "real presence," and to turn the good old English
communion into the Romish "mass," is to pour contempt on our Martyrs,
and to upset the first principles of the Protestant Reformation. Nay,
rather, it is to ignore the plain teaching of God's Word, and do
dishonour to the priestly office of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible
teaches expressly that the Lord's Supper was ordained to be "a
remembrance of Christ's body and blood," and not an offering. The Bible
teaches that Christ's vicarious death on the cross was the one perfect
sacrifice for sin, which never needs to be repeated. Let us stand fast
in these two great principles of the Christian faith. A clear view of
the intention of the Lord's Supper is one of the soul's best safeguards
against the delusions of modern days.
II. In the second place, let me try to show _who ought to be
communicants_? _What kind of persons were meant to go to the Table and
receive the Lord's Supper?_
It will clear the ground if I first show who ought not to be partakers
of this ordinance. The ignorance which prevails on this, as well as on
every part of the subject, is vast, lamentable, and appalling. If I can
contribute anything that may throw light upon it, I shall feel very
thankful. The principal giants whom John Bunyan describes, in "Pilgrim's
Progress," as dangerous to Christian pilgrims, were two, Pope and Pagan.
If the good old Puritan had foreseen the times we live in, he would have
said something about the giant Ignorance.
(_a_) It is not right to urge all baptized persons to become
communicants. There is such a thing as fitness and preparedness for the
ordinance. It does not work like a medicine, independently of the state
of mind of those who receive it. The teaching of those who press all
their congregation to come to the Lord's Table, as if the coming _must_
necessarily do every one good, is entirely without warrant of Scripture.
Nay, rather, it is teaching which is calculated to do immense harm to
men's souls, and to turn the reception of the sacrament into a mere
form. Ignorance can never be the mother of acceptable worship, and an
ignorant communicant who comes to the Lord's Table without knowing why
he comes, is altogether in the wrong place.--"Let a man examine himself,
and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup."--"To discern
the Lord's body,"--that is to understand what the elements of bread and
wine represent, and why they are appointed, and what is the particular
use of remembering Christ's death,--is an essential qualification of a
true communicant. God "commands all men everywhere to repent" and
believe the Gospel (Acts xvii. 30); but He does not in the same way, or
in the same manner, command every body to come to the Lord's Table. No:
this thing is not to be taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly, or
carelessly! It is a solemn ordinance, and solemnly it ought to be used.
(_b_) But this is not all. Sinners living in open sin, and determined
not to give it up, ought on no account to come to the Lord's Table. To
do so is a positive insult to Christ, and to pour contempt on His
Gospel. It is nonsense to profess we desire to remember Christ's death,
while we cling to the accursed thing which made it needful for Christ to
die. The mere fact that a man is continuing in sin, is plain evidence
that he does not care for Christ, and feels no gratitude for redemption.
The ignorant Papist who goes to the priest's confessional and receives
absolution, may think he is fit to go to the Popish mass, and after mass
may return to his sins. He never reads the Bible, and knows no better!
But the Englishman who habitually breaks any of God's commandments, and
yet goes to the Sacrament, as if it would do him good and wipe away his
sins, is very guilty indeed. So long as he chooses to continue his
wicked habits he cannot receive the slightest benefit from Christ's
ordinances, and is only adding sin to sin. To carry unrepented sin up to
the Communion Rail, and there receive the bread and wine, knowing in our
own hearts that we and wickedness are yet friends, is one of the worst
things a man can do, and one of the most hardening to conscience. If a
man must have his sins, and cannot give them up, let him by all means
stay away from the Lord's Supper. There is such a thing as "eating and
drinking unworthily," and to our own "condemnation." To no one do these
words apply so thoroughly as to an open sinner.
(_c_) But I have not done yet. Self-righteous people, who think that
they are to be saved by their own works, have no business to come to the
Lord's Table. Strange as it may sound at first, these persons are the
least qualified of all to receive the Sacrament. They may be outwardly
correct, moral and respectable in their lives, but so long as they trust
in their own goodness for salvation, they are entirely in the wrong
place at the Lord's Supper. For what do we declare at the Lord's Supper?
We publicly profess that we have no goodness, righteousness, or
worthiness of our own, and that all our hope is in Christ. We publicly
profess that we are guilty, sinful, and corrupt, and naturally deserve
God's wrath and condemnation. We publicly profess that Christ's merit
and not our's, Christ's righteousness and not our's, is the alone cause
why we look for acceptance with God. Now what has a self-righteous man
to do with an ordinance like this? Clearly nothing at all. One thing, at
any rate, is very plain: a self-righteous man has no business to receive
the sacrament in the Church of England. The Communion Service of the
Church bids all communicants declare that "they do not presume to come
to the Table trusting in their own righteousness, but in God's manifold
and great mercies."--It tells them to say,--"We are not worthy so much
as to gather up the crumbs under Thy table,"--"the remembrance of our
sins is grievous unto us; the burden of them is intolerable."--How any
self-righteous Churchman can ever go to the Lord's Table, and take these
words into his mouth, passes my understanding! It only shows that many
professing Christians use excellent "forms" of worship without taking
the trouble to consider what they mean.
The plain truth is that the Lord's Supper was not meant for dead souls,
but for living ones. The careless, the ignorant, the wilfully wicked,
the self-righteous, are no more fit to come to the Communion rail than a
dead corpse is fit to sit down at a king's feast. To enjoy a spiritual
feast we must have a spiritual heart, and taste, and appetite. To
suppose that Christ's ordinances can do good to an unspiritual man, is
as foolish as to put bread and wine into the mouth of a dead person. The
careless, the ignorant, and the wilfully wicked, so long as they
continue in that state, are utterly unfit to be communicants. To urge
them to attend is not to do them good but harm. The Lord's Supper is not
a converting or justifying ordinance. If a man goes to the Table
unconverted or unforgiven, he will come away no better at all.
But, after all, the ground having been cleared of error, the question
still remains to be answered,--Who are the sort of persons who ought to
be communicants? I answer that question in the words of the Church
Catechism. I there find the inquiry made, "What is required of them who
come to the Lord's Supper?" In reply I find it taught that people should
"examine themselves whether they repent them truly of their former sins,
steadfastly purposing to lead a new life;"--whether they "have a lively
faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of His
death;"--and whether they "are in charity with all men."--In a word, I
find that a worthy communicant is one who possesses three simple marks
and qualifications,--repentance, faith, and charity. Does a man truly
repent of sin and hate it? Does a man put his trust in Jesus Christ as
his only hope of salvation? Does a man live in charity towards others?
He that can truly say to each of these questions, "I do," he is a man
that is Scripturally qualified for the Lord's Supper. Let him come
boldly. Let no barrier be put in his way. He comes up to the Bible
standard of communicants. He may draw near with confidence, and feel
assured that the great Master of the banquet is not displeased.
Such a man's repentance may be very imperfect. Never mind! Is it real?
Does he truly repent at all?--His faith in Christ may be very weak.
Never mind! Is it real? A penny is as truly the current coin of the
realm, and as really stamped with the Queen's image as a sovereign. His
charity may be very defective in quantity and degree. Never mind! Is it
genuine? The grand test of a man's Christianity is not the quantity of
grace he has got, but whether he has any grace at all. The first twelve
communicants, when Christ Himself gave the bread and wine, were weak
indeed,--weak in knowledge, weak in faith, weak in courage, weak in
patience, weak in love! But eleven of them had that about them which
outweighed all defects: they were real, genuine, sincere, and true.
For ever let this great principle be rooted in our minds,--the only
worthy communicant is the man who is experimentally acquainted with
repentance toward God, faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and
practical love toward others. Are you that man? Then you may draw
near to the table, and take the sacrament to your comfort. Lower
than this I dare not pitch my standard of a communicant. I will
never help to crowd a communion rail with careless, ignorant,
self-righteous attendants.--Higher than this I will not pitch my
standard. I will never tell any one to keep away till he is perfect,
and to wait till his heart is as unruffled as an angel's. I will not
do so, because I believe that neither my Master nor His Apostles
would have done so. Show me a man that really feels his sins, really
leans on Christ, really struggles to be holy, and I will bid him
welcome in my Master's name. He may feel weak, erring, empty,
feeble, doubting, wretched, and poor. What matter? St. Paul, I
believe, would have received him as a right communicant, and I will
do likewise.
III. In the third place, let us consider _what benefit communicants may
expect to get by going to the Table and attending the Lord's Supper_.
This is a point of grave importance, and one on which vast mistakes
abound. On no point, perhaps, connected with this ordinance, are the
views of Christians so vague and misty and undefined.
One common idea among men is that "taking the sacrament must do them
good." Why, they cannot explain. What good, they cannot exactly say. But
they have a loose general notion that it is the right thing to be a
communicant, and that somehow or other it is of service to their souls!
This is of course nothing better than ignorance. It is unreasonable to
suppose that such communicants can please Christ, or receive any real
benefit from what they do. If there is any principle clearly laid down
in the Bible about any act of religious worship, it is this,--that it
must be _intelligent_. The worshipper must at least understand something
about what he is doing. Mere bodily worship, unaccompanied by mind or
heart, is utterly worthless. The man who walks up to a communion rail,
and eats the bread and drinks the wine, as a mere matter of form,
because his minister tells him, without any clear idea of what it all
means, derives no benefit. He might just as well stay at home!
Another common idea among men is that, "taking the sacrament will help
them to heaven, and take away their sins." To this delusive idea you may
trace up the habit in some parishes of going to the sacrament once a
year, in order, as an old farmer once said, "to wipe off the year's
sins." To this idea again, you may trace the too common practice of
sending for a minister in time of sickness, in order to receive the
sacrament before death. Alas, how many take comfort about their
relatives, after they have lived a most ungodly life, for no better
reason than this,--that _they took the sacrament_ when they were dying!
Whether they repented and believed and had new hearts, they neither seem
to know or care. All they know is that "they took the sacrament before
they died." My heart sinks within me when I hear people resting on such
evidence as this.
Ideas like these are mournful proofs of the ignorance that fills the
minds of men about the Lord's Supper. They are ideas for which there is
not the slightest warrant either in Scripture or the Prayer-book. The
sooner they are cast aside and given up, the better for the Church and
the world.
Let us settle it firmly in our minds that the Lord's Supper was not
given to be a means either of justification or of conversion. It was
never meant to give grace where there is no grace already, or to provide
pardon when pardon is not already enjoyed. It cannot possibly supply the
absence of repentance to God, and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ. It
is an ordinance for the penitent, not for the impenitent,--for the
believing, not for the unbelieving,--for the converted, not for the
unconverted. The unconverted man, who fancies that he can find a
short-cut road to heaven by taking the sacrament, without treading the
well-worn steps of repentance and faith, will find to his cost one day,
that he is totally deceived. The Lord's Supper was meant to increase and
help the grace that a man has, but not to impart the grace that he has
not. It was certainly never intended to make our peace with God, to
justify, or to convert.
The simplest statement of the benefit which a true-hearted communicant
may expect to receive from the Lord's Supper, is that which is supplied
by the Church Catechism,--"The strengthening and refreshing of our
souls."--Clearer views of Christ and His atonement, clearer views of
all the offices which Christ fills as our Mediator and Advocate, clearer
views of the complete redemption Christ has obtained for us by His
vicarious death on the cross, clearer views of our full and perfect
acceptance in Christ before God, fresh reasons for deep repentance for
sin, fresh reasons for lively faith,--these are among the leading
returns which a believer may confidently expect to get from his
attendance at the Lord's Table. He that eats the bread and drinks the
wine in a right spirit, will find himself drawn into closer communion
with Christ, and will feel to know Him more, and understand Him better.
(_a_) Right reception of the Lord's Supper has a _humbling_ effect on
the soul. The sight of these emblems of Christ's body and blood, reminds
us how sinful sin must be, if anything less than the death of God's own
Son could make satisfaction for it, or redeem us from its guilt. Never
surely ought we to be so "clothed with humility," as when we kneel at
the Communion rail.
(_b_) Right reception of the Lord's Supper has a _cheering_ effect on
the soul. The sight of the bread broken, and the wine poured out,
reminds us how full, perfect, and complete is our salvation. Those
lively emblems remind us what an enormous price has been paid for our
redemption. They press on us the mighty truth, that believing on Christ,
we have nothing to fear, because a sufficient payment has been made for
our debt. The "precious blood of Christ" answers every charge that can
be brought against us. God can be a "just God, and yet the justifier of
every one that believeth on Jesus." (Rom. iii. 26.)
(_c_) Right reception of the Lord's Supper has a _sanctifying_ effect on
the soul. The bread and wine remind us how great is our debt of
gratitude to our Lord, and how thoroughly we are bound to live for Him
who died for our sins. They seem to say to us, "Remember what Christ has
done for you, and ask yourself whether there is anything too great to do
for Him."
(_d_) Right reception of the Lord's Supper into hearts, has a
_restraining_ effect on the soul. Every time a believer goes up to the
Communion rail he is reminded what a serious thing it is to be a
Christian, and what an obligation is laid on him to lead a consistent
life. Bought with such a price as that bread and wine call to his
recollection, ought he not to glorify Christ in body and spirit, which
are His? The man that goes regularly and intelligently to the Lord's
Table finds it increasingly hard to yield to sin and conform to the
world.
Such is a brief account of the benefits which a right-hearted
communicant may expect to receive from the Lord's Supper. In eating that
bread and drinking that cup, such a man will have his repentance
deepened, his faith increased, his knowledge enlarged, his habit of holy
living strengthened. He will realize more of the "real presence" of
Christ in his heart. Eating that bread by faith, he will feel closer
communion with the body of Christ. Drinking that wine by faith, he will
feel closer communion with the blood of Christ. He will see more clearly
what Christ is to him, and what he is to Christ. He will understand more
thoroughly what it is to be "one with Christ, and Christ one with him."
He will feel the roots of his soul's spiritual life watered, and the
work of grace in his heart stablished, built up, and carried forward.
All these things may seem and sound foolishness to a natural man, but to
a true Christian these things are light, and health, and life, and
peace. No wonder that a true Christian finds the Lord's Supper a source
of blessing!
Remember, I do not pretend to say that all Christians experience the
full blessing of the Lord's Supper, which I have just attempted to
describe. Nor yet do I say that the same believer will always find his
soul in the same spiritual frame, and always receive the same amount of
benefit from the sacrament. But this I will boldly say: you will rarely
find a true believer who will not say that he reckons the Lord's Supper
one of his best helps and highest privileges. He will tell you that if
he were deprived of the Lord's Supper he should find the loss of it a
great drawback to his soul. There are some things of which we never know
the value till they are taken from us. So I believe it is with the
Lord's Supper. The weakest and humblest of God's children gets a
blessing from this sacrament, to an extent of which he is not aware.
IV. In the last place, I have to consider _why it is that many so-called
Christians never come to the Lord's Supper_.
It is a simple matter of fact, that myriads of baptized persons never
come to the Table of the Lord. They would not endure to be told that
they deny the faith, and are practically not in communion with Christ.
When they worship, they attend a place of Christian worship; when they
hear religious teaching, it is the teaching of Christianity; when they
are married, they use a Christian service; when their children are
baptized, they ask for the Sacrament of Baptism. Yet all this time they
never come to the Lord's Supper! They often live on in this state of
mind for many years, and to all appearance are not ashamed. They often
die in this condition without ever having received the sacrament, and
yet profess to feel hope at the last, and their friends express a hope
about them. And yet they live and die in open disobedience to a plain
command of Christ! These are simple facts. Let any one look around him,
and deny them if he can. I challenge any one to deny that the
non-communicants in all English congregations form the majority, and the
communicants the minority of the worshippers.
Now how is this? What account can we give of it? Our Lord Jesus Christ's
last injunctions to His disciples are clear, plain, and unmistakable. He
says to all, "Eat, drink: do this in remembrance of Me." Did He leave
it to our discretion whether we would attend to His injunction or not?
Did He mean that it did not signify whether His disciples did or did not
keep up the ordinance He had just established? Certainly not. The very
idea is absurd, and one certainly never dreamed of in apostolic
times.--St. Paul evidently takes it for granted that every Christian is
a communicant. A class of Christian worshippers who never came to the
Table, was a class whose existence was unknown to him. What, then, are
we to say of that large multitude of non-communicants which walks out of
our churches every sacrament Sunday, unabashed, unhumbled, not afraid,
not the least ashamed? Why is it? How is it? What does it all mean? Let
us look these questions fairly in the face, and endeavour to give an
answer to them.
(1) For one thing, many are not communicants because they are utterly
careless and thoughtless about religion, and ignorant of the very first
principles of Christianity. They go to church, as a matter of form,
because other people go; but they neither know, nor care anything about
what is done, at church! The faith of Christ has no place either in
their hearts, or heads, or consciences, or wills, or understandings. It
is a mere affair of "words and names," about which they know no more
than Festus or Gallio. There were very few such Christians in St. Paul's
times, if indeed there were any. There are far too many in these last
days of the world, when everything seems to be wearing out and running
to seed. They are the dead-weight of the Churches, and the scandal of
Christianity. What such people need is light, knowledge, grace, a
renewed conscience, a changed heart. In their present state they have no
part or lot in Christ; and dying in this state they are unfit for
heaven. Do I wish them to come to the Lord's Supper? Certainly not, till
they are converted. Except a man be converted he will never enter the
kingdom of God.