02.43. The Lords Supper.
Chapter 43 The Lord’s Supper.
1. In what passages of the New Testament is the institution of the Lord’s Supper recorded ?
Matthew 26:26-28;Mark 14:22-24;Luke 22:17-20;1 Corinthians 10:16-17; 1 Corinthians 11:23-30.
2. Prove that its observance is a perpetual obligation.
1st. From the words of institution, “Do this in remembrance of me,” and again “this do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me.”
2nd. Paul’s word.––1 Corinthians 11:26. “ For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.”
3rd. The apostolic example (Acts 2:42; Acts 2:46; Acts 20:7, etc.).
4th. The frequent reference to it as of perpetual obligation in the apostolical writings (1 Corinthians 10:16-21, etc.).
5th. The practice of the entire Christian church in all its branches from the first.
3. What are the various phrases used in Scripture to designate the Lord’s Supper, and their import ?
1st. “Lord’s Supper.”––1 Corinthians 11:20. The Greek word
2nd. “Cup of blessing.”––1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup was blessed by Christ, and the blessing of God is now invoked upon it by the officiating minister.––Matthew 26:26-27.
3rd. “Lord’s Table.”––1 Corinthians 10:21. Table here stands by a usual figure for the provisions spread upon it. It is the table at which the Lord invites his guests, and at which he presides.
4th. “Communion.”––1 Corinthians 10:16. In partaking of this sacrament, the fellowship of the believer with Christ is established and exercised in a mutual giving and receiving, and consequently also the fellowship of believers with one another, through Christ.
5th. “Breaking of bread.”––Acts 2:42. Here the symbolical action of the officiating minister is put for the whole service.
4. By what other terms was it designated in the early church ?
1st. “Eucharist,” from
2nd. &
3rd.
4th.
5th.
6th.
7th. Missa, mass. The principal designation used by the Latin church. The most probable derivation of this term is from the ancient formula of dismission. When the sacred rites were finished the deacons called out, “ Ite, missa est,”go, it is discharged. Turretin 50. 19, Q. 21.
5. How is this sacrament defined, and what are the essential points included in the definition ?
See “Larger Catechism,” Q. 168; “Shorter Catechism,” Q.96. The essential points of this definition are, 1st, the elements, bread and wine, given and received according to the appointment of Jesus Christ.
2nd. The design of the recipient of doing this in obedience to Christ’s appointment, in remembrance of him, to show forth his death till he come.
3rd. The promised presence of Christ in the sacrament by his Spirit, “ so that the worthy receivers are not after a corporeal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of Christ’s body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.”
6. What kind of bread is to be used in the sacrament, and what is the usage of the different churches on this point ?
Bread of some kind is essential, 1st, from the command of Christ;
2nd, from the significancy of the symbol; since bread, as the principal natural nourishment of our bodies, represents his flesh, which, as living bread, he gave for the life of the world.––John 6:51. But the kind of (read, whether leavened or unleavened, is not specified in the command, nor is it rendered essential by the nature of the service.
Christ used unleavened bread because it was present at the Passover. The early Christians celebrated the Communion at a common meal, with the bread of common life, which was leavened. The Romish Church has used unleavened bread ever since the eighth century, and commands the use of the same as the only proper kind, but does not make it essential (“Cat. Conc. Trident.,” Pt. 2, ch. 4:, && 13 and 14). The Creek Church insists upon the use of leavened bread. The Lutherans Church uses unleavened bread. The Reformed Church, including the Church of England, regards the use of leavened bread, as the food of common life, to be most proper, since bread in the Supper is the symbol of spiritual nourishment. The use of sweet cake, practiced in some of our churches is provincial and arbitrary, and is without any support in Scripture, tradition, or good taste.
7. What is the meaning of the term
It is evident from the usage of this word in the New Testament that it was designed by the sacred writers to designate the fermented juice of the grape.––Matthew 9:17;John 2:3-10;Romans 14:21;Ephesians 5:18;1 Timothy 3:8; 1 Timothy 5:23;Titus 2:3. This is established by the unanimous testimony of all competent scholars and missionary residents in the East.––See Dr. Lindsay W. Alexander’s article in Kitto’s “Cyclopaedia”; and Dr. Wm. L. Bevan’s art. on “Wine” in “Smith’s Bible Dict.”; and Dr. Ph. Schaff in Lange’s “Commentary on John,”ch. 2:1-11, note p. 111; and Rev. Dr. T. Laurie, missionary, in the “Bibliotheca Sacra,” Jan., 1869; and Dr. Justin Perkins, “Residence of Eight Years in Persia,” p. 236; and Dr. Eli Smith in the “Bib. Sacra,” 1846, pp. 385, etc.; and Rev. J. H. Shedd (missionary), in “Interior,” of July 20,1871. The Romish Church contends, on the authority of tradition, that water should be mingled with the wine (“Cat. Conc. Trident.”, Pt. 2., Ch. 4., Ques. 16 and 17). But this has not been commanded, nor is it involved in any way in the symbolical significancy of the rite. That wine and no other liquid is to be used is clear from the record of the institution, Matthew 26:26-29, and from the usage of the apostles.
8. How does it appear that breaking the bread is an important part of the service ?
1st. The example of Christ in the act of institution, which is particularly noticed in each inspired record of the matter. Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:1-71; Co 11:24.
2nd. It is prominently set forth in the reference made by the apostles to the sacrament in the epistles.––1 Corinthians 10:16. The entire service is designated from this one action.
3rd. It pertains to the symbolical significancy of the sacrament.
(1.) It represents the breaking of Christ’s body for us. 1 Corinthians 11:24.
(2.) It represents the communion of believers, being many in one body.––1 Corinthians 10:17. This is denied by the Lutheran Church, which holds that the “breaking” is only a preparation for distribution (see Krauth’s “Conservative Reformation,” pp. 719–722).
9. What is the proper interpretation of 1 Corinthians 10:16, and in what sense are the elements to be blessed or consecrated ? The phrase to bless is used in Scripture only in three senses, 1st. To bless God, i. e., to declare his praises, and to utter our gratitude to him.
2nd. To confer blessing actually, as God does upon his creatures.
3rd. To invoke the blessing of God upon any person or thing. The “cup of blessing which we bless” is the consecrated cup upon which the minister has invoked the divine blessing. As the blessing of God is invoked upon food, and it is thus consecrated unto the end of its natural use, 1 Timothy 4:5, so the elements are set apart as sacramental signs of an invisible spiritual grace, to the end of showing forth Christ death, and of ministering grace to the believing recipient. by the invocation by the minister of God’s blessing in the promised presence of Christ through his spirit. The Romish Church teaches that when the priest pronounces the words of consecration with the due intention, he really effects the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. The form to be used in the consecration of the bread is, “This is my body.” The form to be used in consecrating the wine is, “For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins” (“Cat. Conc. Trident.,” Pt. 2., Ch. 4., Ques. 19–26).
10. Show that the distribution of the elements to the people and their reception by them is an essential part of this sacrament ?
Since the Romish Church has perfectly developed the doctrines of transubstantiation, and of the sacrifice of the mass, they have logically come to regard the essential design of the ordinance to be effected when the act of consecration has been performed, and hence the distribution of the elements to the people is considered non–essential. Hence they preserve the bread as the veritable body of the Lord shut up in the pyx, carry it about in processions and worship it. Hence they also maintain the right of the priest in the mass to communicate without the people, and to carry the wafer to the sick who are absent from the place of communion.––“ Conc. Trident.,” Sess. 13, Ch. 6, and cans. 4–7, and Sess. 22, Song of Solomon 8:1-14.
Protestants, on the contrary, hold that it is of the essence of this holy ordinance that it is an action, beginning and ending in the appointed use of the elements. “Take eat,” said Christ. “This do in remembrance of me.” It is a “breaking of bread,” an “eating and drinking” in remembrance of Christ, it is a “communion.” Protestants all hold, consequently, that the distribution and reception of the elements are essential parts of the service, and that when these are accomplished the sacrament ends. The Lutherans hold that the presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament is confined to the time of the sacramental use of the elements, that is to the time of their distribution and reception, and that what remains afterwards is common bread and wine.––“Form. Concord.,” Pt. 2, Ch. 7, 82, and 108; “Confession of Faith,” Ch. 29, & 4. The Reformed Church holds that the elements should be put into the hands of the communicant, and not as Catholics, into his mouth. Christ said, “take eat,” and the act is symbolical of personal self–appropriation.
Since this sacrament is a “communion” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17) of the members with one another and with Christ together, the rite is abused when the elements are sent to persons absent from the company among whom it is celebrated, and all private communion of ministers or laymen is absurd. In case of need all Reformed Churches allow the pastor and elders to go. with as many Christian fiends as the case admits of; and hold a communion in the chamber of sick believers, who otherwise would be unable to attend (Gen. Assem. O. S., 1863, “Moore’s Digest.,” p. 668).
11. What should be the nature of the exercises during the distribution of the elements ?
“The Sacraments are seals of the Covenant of Grace” formed between Christ and his people, and in the Lord’s Supper “the worthy receivers really and truly receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified,” each believer being made “a priest unto God” (1 Peter 2:5;Revelation 1:20), “having liberty to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus” (Hebrews 10:19). From all this it necessarily follows that in this sacrament the communicants are to act immediately in their covenanting with the Lord. The minister ought never, therefore, to throw the communicants into a passive attitude as the recipients of instructions or exhortations. All such didactic and hortatory exercises being assigned to the “preparatory” services, and to the sermon before communion, the minister should confine himself to leading the communicants in the act of communion in exercises of direct worship such as suitable prayers and hymns. And all the prayers and hymns associated with this holy ordinance should be specifically appropriate to it, and not merely of a general religious character. THE RELATION OF THE SIGN AND THE GRACE SIGNIFIED.
12. What is the Romish doctrine on this subject? And how is it expressed by the term Transubstantiation? The early fathers spoke of the presence of Christ in the Supper in indefinite language, and with a general tendency to exaggeration. Their metaphorical language tended to a confusion between the symbols of religious service and the spiritual ideas represented. As the ministry came to be regarded as a priesthood, and the only channels of grace to the people, the sacraments were more and more exalted into the necessary instruments through which they acted. With the conception of a real priesthood necessarily emerged the need of a real sacrifice; and for the reality of the sacrifice the real presence of a divine incarnate victim also was necessarily provided. The doctrine in its present form was first brought out explicitly by Paschasius Radbert, abbot of Corbet (A. D. 831). It was opposed by Ratramnus, but gradually gained ground. The term transubstantiatio, conversion of substance, was used to define it in the first instance by Hildebert of Tours (1134). It was first decreed as an article of faith, at the instance of Innocent III., by the fourth “Lateran Council,” A. D. 1215. Their doctrine is that when the words of consecration are pronounced by the priest––
1st. The whole substance of the bread is changed into the very body of Christ which was born of the Virgin, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, and the whole substance of the wine is changed into the blood of Christ.
2nd. That as in his theantropic person the soul is inseparable from the body, and the divinity from the soul, so in the sacrament the soul and body of the Redeemer is present with his flesh and blood.
3rd. That only the species, or sensible qualities of the bread and wine remain, accidentia sine subjecto, and that the substance of the flesh and blood is present without their accidents.
4th. This conversion of substance is permanent, so that the flesh and blood remain permanently and are to be preserved and adored as such. They rest their doctrine on Scripture (Hic est corpus meum), tradition, and the authority of councils.
13. On what grounds does the Romish Church withhold the use of the cup from all except the officiating priest and what is their doctrine of ‘concomitance.’ (bread and wine ‘are one’ with the body and blood of Christ)? The Early Church for ages, and the Greek and all Protestant Churches to the present time, follow the example of Christ and his apostles in distributing among all communicants both the bread and the wine “sub utraque forma .”(under both kinds) The Romish Church however, for fear that some portion of the Lord’s person might be unintentionally desecrated, has restricted the cup to the officiating minister alone. The only exception allowed is when the cardinals receive the cup from the pope officiating on Holy Thursday. The Hussite War had for its principal object the gaining for the people the privilege of communicating in both kinds. To defend their custom theologians advanced the doctrine that the whole Christ is present in each of the elements, to which Thomas Aquinas first gave the name concomitantia. The body includes the nerves, sinews, and all else that is necessary to a complete body; and as the blood is inseparable from the flesh, and the soul from the body, and the divinity from the soul, it follows that the entire person of the Redeemer is present in each particle of both elements, separation having been made. He, therefore, who receives any fraction of the bread receives blood as well as flesh, because he receives the whole Christ.
14. Present the arguments proving the Romish doctrine of the relation of the sign to the thing signifed to be unscriptural as well as irrational.
1st. The sole Scriptural argument of the Romanists is derived from the words of institution, “This is my body” (Matthew 26:26). Protestants answer. This phrase in this place must mean, “this bread represents, or symbolizes, my body.” This is evident––
(1.) Because such language in Scripture must often be so interpreted, e. g., Genesis 41:26-27––“The seven good kine are seven years:and the seven good ears are seven years.”Daniel 7:24––“And the ten horns are ten kings.”Exodus 12:11;Ezekiel 37:11 ––“These bones are the whole house of Israel.”Matthew 13:19; Matthew 13:37; Revelation 1:20––“The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches.”
(2.) In this case any other interpretation is rendered impossible by the fact that Christ was sitting present in the body when he spoke the words, and that he also eat the bread.
(3.) Also by what Christ says of the cup. Matt., “This cup is my blood.” Luke, “This cup is the New Testament in my blood.” Paul (1 Corinthians 10:16) says the cup is the
2nd. Paul calls one of the elements bread, as well after as before its consecration.––1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:26-28.
3rd. This doctrine is inconsistent with their own definition of a sacrament. They agree with Protestants and with the fathers in distinguishing, in every sacrament, two things, viz., the sign and the thing signified. See above, Chap. 41., Question 2. But the doctrine of transubstantiation confounds these together.
4th. The senses, when exercised in their proper sphere, are as much a revelation from God as any other. No miracle recorded in the Bible contradicted the senses, but, on the contrary, the reality of the miracle was established by the testimony of the senses. See the transubstantiation of water into wine.––John 2:1-10, and Luke 24:36-43. But this doctrine flatly contradicts our senses, since we see, smell, taste, and touch the bread and wine as well after their consecration as before.
5th. Reason also, in its proper sphere, is a divine revelation, and though it may be transcended, never can be contradicted by any other revelation, supernatural or otherwise. See above, Chap. 3., Question 14. But this doctrine contradicts the principles of reason
(1.) with respect to the nature of Christ’s body, by supposing that, although it is material, it may be, without division, wholly present in heaven, and at many different places on earth at the same time.
(2.) In maintaining that the body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament, yet without any of their sensible qualities, and that all the sensible qualities of the bread and wine are present, while the bodies to which they belong are absent. But qualities have no existence apart from the substances to which they belong.
6th. This doctrine is an inseparable part of a system of priestcraft entirely anti–Christian, including the worship of the host, the sacrifice of the mass, and hence the entire substitution of the priest and his work in the place of Christ and his work. It also blasphemously subjects the awful divinity of our Saviour to the control of his sinful creatures, who at their own will call him down from heaven, and withhold or communicate him to the people.
15. State the Lutheran view as to the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. The Lutherans hold––
1st. The communicatio idiomatum, or that the personal union of the divine and human natures involve the sharing of the humanity at least with the omnipresence of the divinity. The entire person of the incarnate God, body, soul, and divinity are everywhere.
2nd. That the language of our Lord in the institution, “This (bread) is my body,” is to be understood literally.
They, therefore, hold––
1st. That the entire person, body and blood of Christ are really and corporeally present in, with and under the sensible elements.
2nd. That they are received by the mouth.
3rd. That they are received by the unbeliever as well as by the believer. But the unbeliever receives them to his own condemnation. On the other hand they deny––
1st. Transubstantiation; holding that the bread and wine remain (as to their substance) what they appear.
2nd. That the presence of Christ in the sacrament is effected by the officiating minister.
3rd. That the presence of Christ in the elements is permanent; being sacramental, it ceases when the sacrament is over.
4th. That the bread and wine only represent Christ’s body and blood.
5th. That the presence of the true body and blood is “spiritual,” in the sense of being mediated either (a) through the Holy Ghost, or (b) through the faith of the recipient.
16. State the doctrine of the Reformed Church.
Luther’s activity as a reformer extended from 1517 to 1546; Melanchthon’s from 1521 to 1560;Zwingle’s from his appearance at Zurich, 1518, to his death, 1531; Calvin’s from 1536 to 1564. The Marburg Colloquy was held October, 1529; the Augsburg Confession published June, 1530; and the first edition of “Calvin’s Institutes,” was published at Basle, 1536, and the finished work was published by him in Geneva, 1559.
I. Zwingle held that the bread and wine are mere memorials of the body of Christ absent in heaven. His view at first prevailed among the Reformed churches, and was embodied in Zwingle’s “Fidei Ratio,” sent to the diet at Augsburg, 1530; the “Confessio Tetrapolitana,” by Martin Bucer, 1530; the “First Basle, Confession,” by Oswald Myconius, 1532; and the “First Helvetic Confession,” by Bullinger, Myconius, etc., 1536.
II. Calvin occupied middle ground between the Zwinglians and Lutherans. He held––
(1.) In common with Zwingle and all the Reformed that the words “This is my body”, means “this bread represents my body.”
(2.) That God in this sacrament offers to all, and gives to all believing recipients, through the eating and drinking the bread and wine all the sacrificial benefits of Christ’s redemption.
(3.) He also taught that besides this the very body and blood of Christ, though absent in heaven, communicate a life–giving influence to the believer in the act of receiving the elements. But that this influence though real and vital is (a) mystical not physical, (b) mediated through the Holy Ghost, (c) conditioned upon the act of faith by which the communicant receives them. This view is set forth chiefly in his “Institutes,” Bk. 4, Ch.17 and in the “Gallic Confession,” Art. 36, prepared by a Synod in Paris, 1559; in the “Scottish Confession,” Art. 21, by John Knox, 1560; and the “Belgic Confession,” Art. 35, by Von Bres, 1561.
III. Alter all hope of reconciling the Lutherans with the Reformed branches of the church on this subject was exhausted, Calvin drew up the Consensus Tigurinus in 1549 for the purpose of uniting the Zurich–Zwinglian with the Genevan–Calvanistic party in one doctrine of the Eucharist. It was accepted by both parties, and the doctrine it presents has ever since been received as the consensus of the Reformed churches. It prevails in the “Second Helvetic Confession,” by Bullinger, 1564; the “Heidelberg Cathechism,” by Ursinus, a student of Melanchton, 1562; the “Thirty–nine Articles of the Church of England,” 1562; and the “Westminster Confession of Faith,” 1648.
These all agree––
1st. As to the “presence,” of the flesh and blood of Christ.
(1.) His human nature is in heaven only.
(2.) His Person as God–man is omnipresent everywhere and always, our communion is with his entire person rather that with his flesh and blood (see above, Ch.. 60., Ques. 13 and 16).
(3.) The presence of his flesh and blood in the sacrament is neither physical nor local; but only through the Holy Spirit, affecting the soul graciously.
2nd. As to that which the believer feeds upon, they agreed that it was not the “substance” but the virtue or efficacy of his body and blood, i. e., their sacrificial virtue, as broken and shed for sin.
3rd. As to the “feeding,” of believers upon this “body and blood,” they agreed––
(1.) It was not with the mouth in any manner.
(2.) It was by the soul alone.
(3.) It was by faith, the mouth or hand of the soul.
(4.) By or through the power of the Holy Ghost.
(5.) It is not confined to the Lord’s Supper. It takes place whenever faith in him is exercised.—“Bib. Ref:,” April, 1848. THE EFFICACY OF THIS SACRAMENT.
17. What is the Romish doctrine as to the efficacy of the Eucharist, and in what sense and on what ground do they hold that it is also a sacrifice ?
They distinguish between the eucharist as a sacrament, and as a sacrifice. As a sacrament its effect is that ex opere operato(through works) the receiver who does not present an obstacle, is nourished spiritually, sanctified and replenished with merit by the actual substance of the Redeemer eaten or drunk. On the other hand––“The sacrifice of the mass is an external oblation of the body and blood of Christ offered to God in recognition of his supreme Lordship, under the appearance of bread and wine visibly exhibited by a legitimate minister, with the addition of certain prayers and ceremonies prescribed by the church for the greater worship of God and edification of the people.”––Dens, Vol. 5., p. 358. With respect to its end it is to be distinguished into, 1st, Latreuticum, or an act of supreme worship offered to God.
2nd. Eucharisticum, thanksgiving.
3rd. Propitiatorium, atoning for sin, and propitiating God by the offering up of the body and blood of Christ again.
4th. Imperatorium, since through it we attain to many spiritual and temporal blessings.––Dens, Vol. 5., p. 368. The difference between the eucharist as a sacrament and a sacrifice is very great, and is twofold; as a sacrament it is perfected by consecration, as a sacrifice all its efficacy, consists in its oblation. As a sacrament it is to the worthy receiver a source of merit, as a sacrifice it is not only a source of merit, but also of satisfaction, expiating the sins of the living and the dead.––“Cat. Rom.,” Pt. 2., Chap. 4., Q. 55; “Council Trent,” Sess. 22.
They found this doctrine upon the authority of the church, and absurdly appeal to Malachi 1:11, as a prophecy of this perpetually recurrent sacrifice, and to the declaration, Hebrews 7:17, that Christ is “a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedec,” who, say they, discharged his priestly functions in offering bread and wine to Abraham.––Genesis 14:18.
18. How may this doctrine be refuted ?
1st. It has no foundation whatever in Scripture. Their appeal to the prophecy in Malachi, and to the typical relation of Melchizedec to Christ, is self–evidently absurd.
2nd. It rests wholly upon the fiction of transubstantiation, which was disproved above, Question 14.
3rd. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was perfect, and from its essential nature excludes all others.––Hebrews 9:25-28; Hebrews 10:10-14; Hebrews 10:18; Hebrews 10:26-27.
4th. It is inconsistent with the words of institution pronounced by Christ.––Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:24-26. The sacrament commemorates the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, and consequently can not be a new propitiatory sacrifice itself for the same reason the essence of a sacrament is different from that of a sacrifice. The two can not coexist in the same ordinance.
5th. It belonged to the very essence of all propitiatory sacrifices, as well to the typical sacrifices of the Old Testament, as to the all–perfect one of Christ, that life should be taken, that blood should be shed, since it consisted in vicariously suffering the penalty of the law.––Hebrews 9:22. But the Papists themselves call the mass a bloodless sacrifice, and it is wholly without pain or death.
6th. A sacrifice implies a priest to present it, but the Christian ministry is not a priesthood.––See above, Chap. 24, Question 21.
19. What is the Lutheran view as to the efficacy of the sacrament ? The Lutheran view on this point is that the efficacy of the sacrament resides not in the signs, but in the word of God connected with them, and that it is operative only when there is true faith in the receiver. This effect is identical with that of the word, and through faith includes the benefits of vital communion with Christ and all the fruits thereof. It, however, lays stress upon the virtue of the literal body and blood of Christ as present in, with, and under, the bread and wine. This body and blood, being physically received equally by the believer and unbeliever, but being of gracious avail only in the case of the believer.––Luther’s “Small Cat.,” Part V., Krauth’s “Conserv. Reform.,” pp. 825–829.
20. What is the so–called Zwinglian and Remonstrant and Socinians view as to the efficacy of the Eucharist?
Zwingle died prematurely. He undoubtedly took too low a view of the sacraments. If he had lived he would, doubtless, have accompanied his disciples in their union with Calvin in the adoption of the Consensus Tigurinus. The doctrine ever since known by his name, and really held by the Socinians and Remonstrants, differs from the Reformed––
1st. In making the elements mere signs; and in denying that Christ is in any special sense present in the eucharist.
2nd. In denying that they are means of grace, and holding that they are bare acts of commemoration and badges of profession.
21. What is the view of the Reformed churches upon this subject ?
They rejected the Romish view which regards the efficacy of the sacrament as inhering in it physically as its intrinsic property, as heat inheres in fire. They rejected also the Lutheran view as far as it attributes to the sacrament an inherent supernatural power due indeed not to the signs, but to the word of God which accompanies them, but which, nevertheless, is always operative, provided there be faith in the receiver. And, thirdly, they rejected the doctrine of the Socinians and others, that the sacrament is a mere badge of profession, or an empty sign of Christ and his benefits. They declared it to be an efficacious means of grace; but its efficacy, as such, is referred neither to any virtue in it, nor in him that administers it, but solely to the attending operation of the Holy Ghost (virtue Spiritus Sancti extrinsecus accedens), precisely as in the case of the word. It has indeed the moral objective power of a significant emblem, and as a seal it really conveys to every believer the grace of which it is a sign, and it is set apart with especial solemnity as a meeting point between Christ and his people; but its power to convey grace depends entirely, as in the case of the word, on the cooperation of the Holy Ghost. Hence the power is in no way tied to the sacrament. It may be exerted without it. It does not always attend it, nor is it confined to the time, place, or service.––“Bib. Ref., April, 1848; see LORD’S Gal. Confession,” Arts. 36 and 37; “Helv.,” 2., 100. 21; “Scotch Conf:,” Art. 21; 28th and 29th “Articles of Church of England”; also our own standards, “Confession of Faith,” Chapter 29., section 7.
22. What do our standards teach as to the qualifications for admission to the Lord’s Supper ?
1st. Only those who are truly regenerated by the Holy Ghost are qualified, and only those who profess faith in Christ and walk consistently are to be admitted.
2nd. Wicked and ignorant persons, and those who know themselves not to be regenerate, are not qualified, and ought not to be admitted by the church officers.––“Confession of Faith,” Ch. 29. section 8; “Larger Catechism,” Question 173.
3rd. But since many who doubt as to their being in Christ are nevertheless genuine Christians, so if one thus doubting unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity, he ought to labor to have his doubts resolved, and, so doing, to come to the Lord’s Supper, that he may be further strengthened.––“ L Cat.,” Question 172.
4th. “Children born within the pale of the visible church, and dedicated to God in baptism, when they come to years of discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober and steady, and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord’s body, they ought to be informed it is their duty and their privilege to come to the Lord’s Supper.”“The years of discretion in young Christians can not be precisely fixed. This must be left to the prudence of the eldership.”––“Direct. for Worship,” Chap. 9.
23. What is the practice which prevails in the different churches on this subject, and on what principles does such practice rest?
1st. The Romanists make the condition of salvation to be union with and obedience to the church, and, consequently, admit all to the sacraments who express their desire to conform and obey. “No one,” however, “conscious of mortal sin, and having an opportunity of recurring to a confessor, however contrite he may deem himself; is to approach the holy eucharist, until he is purified by sacramental confession.”––“Coun. Trent,” sess. 13, canon 11. The Lutherans agree with them in admitting all who conform to the external requirements of the church.
2nd. High Church prelatists, and others who regard the sacraments as in themselves effective means of grace, maintain that even those who, knowing themselves to be destitute of the fruits of the Spirit, nevertheless have speculative faith, in the gospel, and are free from scandal, and desire to come, should be admitted.
3rd. The faith and practice of all the evangelical churches is that the communion is designed only for believers, and therefore, that a credible profession of faith and obedience should be required of every applicant.
(1.) The Baptist churches, denying altogether the right of infant church membership, receive all applicants for the communion as from the world, and therefore demand positive evidences of the new birth of all.
(2.) All the Pedobaptist churches, maintaining that all children baptized in infancy are already members of the church, distinguish between the admission of the children of the church to the communion, and the admission de novo(altogether new) to the church of the unbaptized alien from the world. With regard to the former, the presumption is that they should come to the Lord’s table when they arrive at “years of discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear to be sober and steady, and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord’s body.” In the case of the unbaptized worldling, the presumption is that they are aliens until they bring a credible profession of a change.
24. How may it be proved that the Lord’s Supper is not designed for the unrenewed ?
It can, of course, be designed only for those who are spiritually qualified to do in reality what every recipient of the sacrament does in form and professedly. But this ordinance is essentially–
1st. A profession of Christ.
2nd. A solemn covenant to accept Christ and his gospel, and to fulfil the conditions of discipleship.
3rd. An act of spiritual communion with Christ. The qualifications for acceptable communion, therefore, are such knowledge, and such a spiritual condition, as shall enable the recipient intelligently and honestly to discern in the emblems the Lord’s body as sacrificed for sin, to contract with him the gospel covenant, and to hold fellowship with him through the Spirit.
25. What have the church and its officers a right to require of those whom they admit to the Lord’s Supper ?
“The officers of the church are the judges of the qualifications of those to be admitted to sealing ordinances.”“And those so admitted shall be examined as to their knowledge and piety.”––“Direct for Worsh.,” Chap. 9. As God has not endowed any of these officers with the power of reading the heart, it follows that the qualifications of which they are the judges are simply those of competent knowledge purity of life, and credible profession of faith. [By “credible,” is meant not that which convinces, but that which can be believed to be genuine.] It is their duty to examine the applicant as to his knowledge, to watch and inquire concerning his walk and conversation, to set before him faithfully the inward spiritual qualifications requisite for acceptable communion, and to hear his profession of that spiritual faith and purpose. The responsibility of the act then rests upon the individual professor, and not upon the session, who are never to be understood as passing judgment upon, or as indorsing the validity of his evidences.
26. What is the difference between the Presbyterian and the Congregational churches upon this point?
There exists a difference between the traditionary views and practice of these two bodies of Christians with respect to the ability, the right, and the duty of church officers, of forming and affirming a positive official judgment upon the inward spiritual character of applicants for church privileges. The Congregationalists understand by “credible profession” the positive evidence of a religious experience which satisfies the official judges of the gracious state of the applicant. The Presbyterians understand by that phrase only an intelligent profession of true spiritual faith in Christ, which is not contradicted by the life.
Dr. Candlish, in the “Edinburgh Witness,” June 8th, 1848, says, “The principle (of communion), as it is notorious that the Presbyterian church has always held it, does not constitute the pastor, elders, or congregation, judges of the actual conversion of the applicant; but, on the contrary, lays much responsibility upon the applicant himself The minister and kirk session must be satisfied as to his competent knowledge, credible profession, and consistent walk They must determine negatively that there is no reason for pronouncing him not to be a Christian, but they do not undertake the responsibility of positively judging of his conversion. This is the Presbyterian rule of discipline, be it right or wrong, differing materially from that of the Congregationalists. In practice there is room for much dealing with the conscience under either rule, and persons destitute of knowledge and of a credible profession are excluded.”
AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS OF CHURCH DOCTRINE.
ROMISH DOCTRINE.––DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST BOTH AS A SACRAMENT AND AS A SACRIFICE.
“Conc. Trident.,” Sess. 13, Song of Solomon 1:1-17.––“If any one denieth, that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that he is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.”
Song of Solomon 2:1-17.—“If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood— the species (accidents) of the bread and wine remaining––which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.”
Song of Solomon 3:1-11.—“If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separation has been made; let him be anathema.”
Song of Solomon 4:1-16.––“If any one saith, that, after the consecration has been completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that in the host, or consecrated particles, which are received or remain after communion, the true body remaineth not; let him be anathema.”
Song of Solomon 6:1-13.—“If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external, of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church, or, is not to be exposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolaters; let him be anathema.”
Song of Solomon 7:1-13.—“If any one shall say–that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honor to the sick; let him be anathema.”
Song of Solomon 8:1-14.—“If any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.”
Can. 10.—“If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the celebrating priest to communicate by himself; let him be anathema.”
Sess. 21, Song of Solomon 1:1-17.—“If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be anathema.”
Song of Solomon 2:1-17.—“If any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate under the species of bread only, laymen and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be anathema.”
Song of Solomon 3:1-11.—“If any one denieth that Christ whole and entire––the fountain and author of all graces––is received under the one species of bread; because that––as some falsely assert––he is not received according to the institution of Christ himself under both species, let him be anathema.”
Sess. 22, Song of Solomon 1:1-17.––“If any one saith, that in the mass, a true and proper sacrifice is not made to God, or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.”
Song of Solomon 2:1-17.—“If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me(Luke 22:19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his own body and blood, let him be anathema.”
Song of Solomon 3:1-11.—“If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice, or, that it profits him only that receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and for the dead, for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.”
Song of Solomon 8:1-14.—“If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful . . let him be anathema.”
Chap. 2.—“Forasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross . . . therefor, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered agreeably to a tradition of the apostles.”
Bellarmin, “ Controv. de Euchar.,” 5. 5.—“The sacrifice of the mass has not an efficacy ex opere operato after the manner of a sacrament. The sacrifice does not operate efficiently and immediately, nor is it properly the instrument of God for making just. It does not make just immediately as baptism and absolution do, but it impetrates the gift of penitence, through which a sinner is made willing to approach the sacrament and by this be justified. . . The sacrifice of the mass is the procurer not only of spiritual but also of temporal benefits, and therefore it can be offered for sins, for punishments, and for any other necessary uses.”
LUTHERAN DOCTRINE.
“Augsburg Confession,” Pars 1, Art. 10; “Apol. Augs. Confession,” p. 157 (Hase), “Formula Concordioe,” Pars 1, ch. 7, &, 1.—“We believe, teach, and profess that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and that together with the bread and wine they are truly distributed and received. & 2.––The words of Christ (this is my body) are to be understood only in their strictly literal sense; so that neither the bread signifies the absent body of Christ, nor the wine the absent blood of Christ, but so that on account of the sacramental union the bread and wine truly are the body and blood of Christ. & 3.––As to what pertains to the consecration we believe, etc., that no human act, nor any utterance of the minister of the church, is the cause of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper, but that this is to be attributed solely to the omnipotent power of our Lord Jesus Christ. & 5––The grounds, however, on which, in this matter, we contend against the Sacramentarians, are these. . . The first ground is an article of our Christian faith, namely, Jesus Christ is true, essential, natural, perfect God and man, in unity of person inseparable and undivided. The second is that the right hand of God is everywhere; but there Christ has, truly and in very deed, been placed, in respect to his humanity, and therefore being present he rules, and holds in his hands and under his feet all things which are in heaven and on earth. The third is that the word of God can not be false. The fourth is that God knows and has in his power various modes in which it is possible to be in a place (present), and he was not restricted to that single mode of presence which philosophers have been accustomed to call local or circumscribed . & 6.––We believe, etc., that the body and blood of Christ are received not only spiritually through faith, but also by the mouth, not after a capernaitish, but a supernatural and celestial manner, by virtue of a sacramental union. . . & 7.––We believe, etc., that not only those who believe in Christ, and worthily approach the Lord’s Supper, but also the unworthy and unbelievers receive the true body and blood of Christ, so that, however, they shall not thence derive either consolation or life, but rather that this receiving shall fall out to judgment to them, unless they be converted and exercise repentance.”
DOCTRINE OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES.
“Gallic Confession,” Art. 36.—“Although Christ is now in heaven, there also to remain till he shall come to judge the world, yet we believe that he, by the hidden and incomprehensible power of his Spirit, nourishes and vivifies us with the substance of his body and blood, apprehended by faith.,”
“Scottish Confession”––“And although there is great distance of place between his now glorified body in heaven and us mortals now upon the earth, yet we nevertheless believe that the bread which we break is the communion of his body, and the cup which we bless is the communion of his blood. . . So we confess that believers in the right use of the Lord’s Supper do thus eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus Christ; and we surely believe that he remains in them and they in him, yea, so become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones, that as the eternal divinity gives life and immortality to the flesh of Jesus Christ, so also, his flesh and blood, when eaten and drunk by us, confer on us the same privileges.”
“Belgic Confession,” Art. 35.
Calvin’s “Institutes,” Bk. 4., Ch. 17 & 10.—“The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ, feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. . . But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh and blood of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore what our mind does not comprehend, let faith conceive; viz., that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space. That sacred communion of flesh and blood whereby Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in his supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers only.”
“Thirty–nine Articles” Art. 28.—“The Supper of the Lord is a sacrament of the redemption by Christ’s death:insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ, . . The body of Christ, is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.”
“Heidelberg Cat.” Ques. 76.—“What is it to eat the crucified body of Christ, and to drink his shed blood? It means, not only with thankful hearts to appropriate the passion of Christ, and thereby receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life, but also and therein, through the Holy Ghost who dwelleth in Christ and in us, to be more and more united to his blessed body so that, although he is in heaven, and we are upon earth, we nevertheless are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and live forever one spirit with him.”
“West. Confession of Faith,” Ch.. 29, & 5.––“The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such a relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit in substance and nature they still remain truly and only bread and wine. & 7.––Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, but not carnally and corporeally, but spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified and all the benefits of his death:the body and blood of Christ being then not corporeally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to the outward senses.”––