Question 96

The Lord’s Supper—The second sacrament of the New Testament has several names given to it in Scripture according to the way it is looked at, and according to the feature in this ordinance that is specially pointed at—(1) Luke’s favourite name for the Supper is “the breaking of bread” (see Luke xxiv. 30; Acts ii. 42, xx. 7). (2) The second scriptural name given to this sacrament is “the communion of the body and blood of Christ” (1 Cor. x. 16). This name brings out that idea of spiritual community and believing and loving fellowship which is an essential element in this ordinance. (3) The third scriptural designation is the Eucharist, or the thanksgiving, referring to Matt. xxvi. 26, 27; 1 Cor. xi. 24, and xiv. 16. The Western Church translated the Greek Eucharist into the Latin actio gratiarum; and it is from this latter phrase we still retain the name of action sermon, the sermon before the action. (4) The fourth, and perhaps the most universal and familiar name, is the Lord’s Supper or the Lord’s Table. It is called a Supper because it takes the place in the New Testament Church of the Passover Supper in the Old Economy. And it bears the name of the Lord’s Supper because our Lord instituted it, and because in it Christ and all His benefits are represented, sealed, and applied to believers. “It is called also ‘the Supper of the Lorde,’ to put a difference betwixt it and ane prophane supper; for this is the Lord’s Supper, a halie supper, not a prophane nor common supper; a supper appointed for the increase of haliness, for the foode of the saule in haliness, to feede the soule to life everlasting. It is called also in the Bible the ‘Table of the Lord,’ it is not called the Altar of the Lord; but the apostle calls it a table to sit at, and not ane altar to stand at; a table to take and receave, and not an altar to offer and propine” (Bruce).

by giving and receiving bread and wine—“Communicating.” “Take this, and divide it among yourselves.” “For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.”

“Sweet solemn hour! The only sound
The sacred symbols passing round,
Offering by turns on Jesus’ part
The Cross to every hand and heart.”

“Are not bread and wine too small and common things to represent the body and blood of Christ? Though a bit of bread and a draught of wine be of small value in themselves, yet they are great in respect of their use and end. A pennyworth of wax is a small thing in itself, but being applied to the label of a deed, may be advanced to the value of thousands of pounds, as it receives the seal of a great inheritance” (Flavel).

according to Christ’s appointment—(See the accounts of the institution of the Supper in the Gospels and in First Corinthians.) On John vi. Bengel says: “Jesus framed His words so skilfully, that immediately at the time, and at all times subsequently, they would indeed apply in their strict literal sense to the spiritual enjoyment of Himself; and yet that afterwards, the same words should by consequence be appropriate to express the most august mystery of the Holy Supper, when that should be instituted. . . . The whole of those words concerning His flesh and blood have in view the Passion of Jesus, and along with it the Holy Supper.” But some able and evangelical Protestant divines have denied that our Lord had any reference at all to the Supper in His great discourse in the sixth of John. And when we reflect on the disastrous effects the Popish and High Church interpretation of that discourse has had on the Church of Christ, we would gladly believe that Bengel’s first explanation is the true and exclusive one.

his death is showed forth—Represented. See Answer 92; Gal. iii. 1.

the worthy receivers—No man properly speaking is worthy. But worth is one thing when a communicant is viewed in himself, and it is another thing when he is looked at as in Christ, and invited by Him. Worth is one thing in the covenant of works, when worth is measured by personal merit, and it is an altogether different thing in the covenant of grace, when worth is measured according to the work and merit of Christ, and the reality of a believer’s union with Him. He who esteems himself to be worthy is clearly debarred from the table: a sense of utter unworthiness is one mark of worth in a communicant. “Are morally honest and sober persons qualified for this sacrament? No; civility and morality do not qualify persons: they are not the wedding-garment, but regenerating grace and faith in the smallest measure are” (Flavel). Morality does not qualify, though immorality absolutely, and in all men, disqualifies and shuts out. On this whole subject see the able and scriptural discussion in the Larger Catechism.

not after a corporal or carnal manner, but by faith made partakers of his body and blood—This is directed against the Popish doctrines of transubstantiation. According to that doctrine, the bread and wine are changed into the very flesh and blood of Christ, so that all communicants literally and physically eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ. But the Catechism, in common with all the Reformed and Evangelical symbols, teaches the scriptural and sacramental doctrines of the Supper. It is the soul that sups here, and not the body. The communicant looks not on the things which are seen, but on the things which are not seen. Only, as the soul resides in the body, and is ministered to in intellectual and spiritual things by means of the body, so is it at the supper-table. There is nothing on this table worth speaking of for the needs of the body; all that is here is for the soul; and it is here offered and received in a bodily way, only because thus the true supper of the soul is more vividly and impressively brought before it. “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

with all his benefits—See under Question 92. (Cf. Ps. lxviii. 19, ciii. 2–5, cxvi. 12.)

to their spiritual nourishment—Spiritual because administered to the spiritual man, and because administered to him by the Spirit of God. The meaning is not exhausted by the antithesis between carnal and spiritual, taken in the sense of bodily and mental. Spiritual here is opposed both to the corporal participation of the Papist, and the merely carnal participation of the unspiritual man. (See the profound and fruitful exposition of this scriptural word in Jonathan Edwards’ Religious Affections, Part iii. sect. i.) “Now in respect this flesh is a spirituall food, serving me to a spirituall life, for this cause it is called a spiritual thing. It is called spirituall, in respect to the spirituall ende quhareunto it servis to my body and soul: because the flesh and blood of Christ servis to nurish mee, not to a temporal life, but to a spirituall and heavenly life” (Bruce).

growth in grace. Neither Baptism nor the Supper is for the beginning or implanting of grace in the soul: grace must be in the soul already before the sacraments are partaken of with any right meaning or good result. George Gillespie argues at great length, following Calvin and other Reformers, that the Supper is not a converting ordinance, but that it is given to nourish and increase the life of grace when it has been already begun; and he adds that the sacraments are just another example of the rule, “Unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” (See Jonathan Edwards, Concerning Qualifications for Communion.)

Uses

1. Flavel points out to those who study this subject that the remembrance of Christ here intended is not a mere speculative or historical, but an affectionate and appropriating remembrance.
2. “Pious souls may derive great confidence and delight from this sacrament, as being a testimony that they form one body with Christ, so that anything which is His they may call their own” (Calvin).
3. “Speers thou quhat new thing we get in the sacrament? I say, we get Christ better nor we did before: we get a better grip of Christ now. That same thing quhilk thou possessed be the hearing of the word, thou possesses now more largely. For be the sacrament my faith is nurished, the bounds of my soull are enlarged, and sa, quhen I had but a little grip of Christ before, as it were betwixt my finger and my thumb, now I get Him in my haill hand: for aye the mair my faith growes, the better grip I get of Christ Jesus” (Bruce).

Questions

1. Derive and explain the leading names applied to this ordinance in the New Testament.

2. Stewart of Cromarty, in his Tree of Promise (a work of genius), says: The Jewish Passover was a discriminative, commemorative, typical, and prophetical ordinance. Explain and illustrate these epithets, and point out their application to our Christian Passover.

3. What did the Reformers and Puritans mean by their axiom to the effect the Supper is not a converting but a quickening and confirming ordinance? To what Scottish and American authors would you turn for a thorough discussion of this important subject?

4. Goodwin teaches in his Trial of a Christian’s Growth that we grow in grace (a) by the adding of one grace to another; (b) by additions of new degrees to the same grace; (c) by increased spirituality in duties; (d) by bringing forth fruits more in their season, and such like. Give illustrations.

5. Commit the following verses on the words, He gave Thanks, which Mr. Grant of Ayr intended to add to p. 16 in the ninth edition of his admirable little book on the Lord’s Supper:—

   And couldst Thou, Lord, Thy thanks express
   In prospect of Thy deep distress,
   And at the table spread to show
   The symbols of Thy coming woe?

   And couldst Thou bless Thy God on high
   That He had sent Thee thus to die,
   And for our sins thus give Thee up
   To drink wrath’s overwhelming cup?

   Oh! what a love must Thine have been
   To praise in view of such a scene,
   When broken bread and flowing wine
   Portrayed those bitter woes of Thine!