"A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread
and drinks of the cup" (1 Corinthians 11:28)
The words which form the tittle of this paper refer to the subject of vast
importance. That subject is the Lord's Supper.
Perhaps no part of the Christian religion is so thoroughly misunderstood as
the Lord's Supper. On no point have there been so many disputes, strifes,
and controversies for almost 1800 years. On no point have mistakes done so
much harm. The very ordinance which was meant for our peace and profit has
become the cause of discord and the occasion of sin. These things ought not
to be!
I make no excuse for including the Lord's Supper among the leading points of
"practical" Christianity. I firmly believe that ignorant views or false
doctrine about this ordinance lie at the root of some of the present
divisions of professing Christians. Some neglect it altogether; some
completely misunderstand it; some exalt it to a position it was never meant
to occupy, and turn it into an idol. If I can throw a little light on it,
and clear up the doubts in some minds, I will feel very thankful. It is
hopeless, I fear, to expect that the controversy about the Lord's Supper will
ever be finally closed until the Lord comes. But it is not too much to hope
that the fog and mystery and obscurity with which it is surrounded in some
minds, may be cleared away by plain Bible truth.
In examining the Lord's Supper I will be content with asking four practical
questions, and offering answers to them.
I. Why was the Lord's Supper ordained?
II. Who ought to go to the Table and be communicants?
III. What may communicants expect from the Lord's Supper?
IV. Why do many so-called Christians (church-going unbelievers) never go to
the Lord's Table?
I think it will be impossible to handle these four questions fairly,
honestly, and impartially, without seeing the subject of this paper more
clearly, and getting some distinct and practical ideas about some leading
errors of our day. I say "practical" emphatically. My chief aim in this
volume is to promote practical Christianity.
I. In the first place, "why was the Lord's Supper ordained?"
It was ordained for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death
of Christ, and of the benefits which we thereby receive. The bread which in
the Lord's Supper is broken, given, and eaten, is meant to remind us of
Christ's body given on the cross for our sins. The wine which is poured out
and received, is meant to remind us of Christ's blood shed on the cross for
our sins. He that eats that bread and drinks that wine is reminded, in the
most striking and forcible manner, of the benefits Christ has obtained for
his soul, and of the death of Christ as the hinge and turning point on which
all those benefits depend.
Now, is the view here stated the doctrine of the New Testament? If it is
not, forever let it be rejected, cast aside, and refused by men. If it is,
let us never be ashamed to hold it close, profess our belief in it, pin our
faith on it, and steadfastly refuse to hold any other view, no matter who
teaches it. In subjects like this we must call no man master. It matters
little what great theologians and learned preachers have thought fit to put
forth about the Lord's Supper. If they teach more than the Word of God
contains they are not to be believed.
I take down my Bible and turn to the New Testament. There I find no less
than four separate accounts of the first appointment of the Lord's Supper.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, all four describe it: all four agree in
telling us what our Lord did on this memorable occasion. Only two tell us
the reason why our Lord commanded that His disciples were to eat the bread
and drink the cup. Paul and Luke both record the remarkable words, "Do this
in remembrance of me." Paul adds his own inspired comment: "For whenever you
eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he
comes." (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:25-26). When Scripture speaks so
clearly, why can't men be content with it? Why should we mystify and
confuse a subject which in the New Testament is so simple? The "continual
remembrance of Christ's death" was the one grand object for which the Lord's
Supper was ordained. He that goes further than this is adding to God's Word,
and does so to the great peril of his soul.
Now, is it reasonable to suppose that our Lord would appoint an ordinance for
so simple a purpose as "remembering His death?" It most certainly is. Of
all the facts in His earthly ministry none are equal in importance to that of
His death. It was the great settlement for man's sin, which had been
appointed in God's promise from the foundation of the world. It was the
great redemption of almighty power, to which every sacrifice of animals, from
the fall of man, continually pointed. It was the grand end and purpose for
which the Messiah came into the world. It was the cornerstone and foundation
of all man's hopes of pardon and peace with God. In short, Christ would have
lived, and taught, and preached, and prophesied, and performed miracles in
vain, if He had not "crowned it all by dying for our sins as our Substitute
on the Cross!" His death was our life. His death was the payment of our
debt to God. Without His death we would have been the most miserable of all
creatures. No wonder that an ordinance was specially appointed to remind us
of our Savior's death. It is the one thing which poor, weak, sinful man
needs to be continually reminded.
Does the New Testament authorize men to say that the Lord's Supper was
ordained to be a sacrifice, and that in it Christ's literal 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 clearly meant, "This bread in my hand is an symbol of my Body, and this
cup of wine in my hand contains a symbol of my Blood." The disciples were
accustomed to hear Him use such language. They remembered His saying, "The
field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom.
The weeds are the sons of the evil one" (Matthew 13:38). 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 Lord's Supper 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.
If any one believes that Paul's words to the Hebrews, "We have an altar"
(Hebrews 13:10), are a proof that the Lord's table is an altar, I remind him
"Christians have an altar where they partake. That altar is Christ our Lord,
who is Altar, Priest, and Sacrifice, all in One."
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 clear answer is that "the natural body and blood of Christ are in
heaven, and not here." Those Roman Catholics 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 non-Biblical.
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 Roman Catholics, 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 communion into the Roman Catholic
"mass," is to pour contempt on our Martyrs, and to upset the first principles
of the Protestant Reformation. No, rather, it is to ignore the plain
teaching of God's Word, and do dishonor 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 substituted death on the cross was
the perfect sacrifice for sin, which never needs to be repeated. Let us
stand firm in these two great principles of the Christian faith. A clear
understanding of the intention of the Lord's Supper is one of the soul's best
safeguards against the delusions of false doctrine.
II. In the second place, let me try to show "who ought to receive the Lord's
Supper?" What kind of persons were meant to go to the Table and receive the
Lord's Supper?
I will 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 will 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 professing Christians to go to the Lord's
Table. 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 urge 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. No, rather, it is a teaching
which is calculated to do immense harm to men's souls, and to turn the
reception of the Lord's Supper 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.
"A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the
cup."--"recognizing the body of the Lord,"--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 people everywhere to
repent and believe the Gospel (Acts 17:30), but He does not in the same way,
or in the same manner, command everybody to come to the Lord's Table. No:
this thing is not to be taken 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 never 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 clear evidence that he does not care for Christ, and
feels no gratitude for the offer of redemption.
The ignorant Roman Catholic who goes to the priest's confessional and
receives absolution, may think he is fit to go to the Roman Catholic mass,
and after mass may return to his sins. He never reads the Bible, and knows
no better! But the professing Christian who habitually breaks any of God's
commandments, and yet goes to the Lord's Table, 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 the
Lord's Table, and is only adding sin to sin. To carry unrepented sin to the
Lord's Table, 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 man can
do, and one of the most hardening to the conscience. If a man must have his
sins, and can't give them up, let him by all means stay away from the Lord's
Supper. There is such a thing as "eating and drinking in an unworthy manner"
and to our own "judgment." To no one do these words apply so thoroughly as to
an unrepentant sinner.
(c) But I am not done yet. Self-righteous people who think that they will
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 Lord's table. 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, 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 only 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 clear: a self-righteous man has no business to
receive the Lord's Supper. 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 numerous and great mercies." It
tells them to say, "We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs
under Your table," "the memory of our sins is grievous to us; the burden of
them is intolerable." How many self-righteous professing Christians can ever
go to the Lord's Table and take these words into his mouth, is beyond my
understanding! It only shows that many professing Christians use the "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 willfully wicked, the self-
righteous, are no more fit to come to the Lord's Table 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 the Lord's Table
can do any 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
willfully wicked, so long as they continue in that state, are utterly unfit
to come to the Lord's Supper. To urge them to partake 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 be no better when
he comes away (actually worse due to the associated judgments for coming
unworthily).
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 receive the
Lord's Supper? I answer that by saying, people who have "examined themselves
to see whether they have truly repented of their former sins, steadfastly