Chapter 15. — The Lord’s-Supper — Its Origin and Nature.
CHAPTER 15. — THE LORD’S-SUPPER —
ITS ORIGIN AND NATURE.
I. ITS ORIGIN. — This we give in Scripture language. The inspired record is found in the following passages, viz.:
“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matthew 26:26-29.
“And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them; and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Mark 14:22-25.
“And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him: And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Luke 22:14-20.
The apostolic comment upon this institution is recorded in the following scriptures, viz.:
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.” 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17.
“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” 1 Corinthians 11:23-28.
II. We next consider the NATURE of this ordinance.
Having presented from the several evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the inspired record of the origin and appointment of this institution by our Lord himself, and from the First Epistle to the Corinthians the apostolic comment upon the same, we have clearly before us the substance of the teachings of Scripture upon the subject.
The first question here demanding our attention is this: In what sense should the phrases, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood,” be understood? The Roman Catholics interpret these words in the most literal acceptation; and contend that, by the prayer of consecration said over the elements by the priest, the bread is no longer bread, and the wine no longer wine, but that they have been converted into the literal body and blood of Christ; and thus they originate the absurd figment of transubstantiation. But little need be said to evince to the unbiased mind that their position upon this subject is both unreasonable and unscriptural.
1. It is unreasonable. It is a maxim of unquestionable truth, both in philosophy and religion, that whatever is palpably repugnant to common sense must be false. Now it is clear as any truth can be that the prayer of consecration can effect no change in the physical proper....ties of the bread and the wine. They are still bread and wine, literally and really such, as much after the consecration as before it; and chemical analysis may readily demonstrate the fact. If so, they are not literally the body and the blood of Christ; and thus it manifestly appears that transubstantiation is unreasonable, because repugnant to the dictates of common sense. Romanists may persuade themselves that they believe it; but really they do not, they cannot.
2. Transubstantiation is unscriptural.
It is a rule of interpretation, admitted by all sound biblical critics, that no scripture should be interpreted in a manner contradictory to common sense, or plain reason, when obviously susceptible of an interpretation not liable to such objections. That figurative language is frequently used in Scripture, none can dispute; and that bread and wine, in the phrases under review, were intended by our Saviour as figures, emblems, symbols, or representatives, of the body and blood of Christ, and not literally such, is the plain obvious construction. How could the disciples understand their Lord as teaching them that the bread was literally his body broken for them, or the wine literally his blood shed for them, when they saw his body yet whole, not nailed to the cross, and his blood not yet flowing from his pierced side? Christ said to his disciples: “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” Did they understand him as teaching that he was literally but a grape-vine, and they but twigs growing upon that vine? St. Paul says, in reference to the Rock that followed the Israelites in the wilderness, “That Rock was Christ.” Was Christ a literal rock? The plain interpretation is this: the rock was a type, or emblem, of Christ; the vine, in its relation to the branches, figuratively represented the relation of Christ to his disciples; and so the bread and the wine were symbols, or representatives, of the body and blood of Christ.
But little better than this error of the Romanists is the doctrine of consubstantiation, which teaches that although the bread and the wine are not literally the body and blood of Christ, yet that his body and blood are literally present with the elements in the Supper, and are literally received by the communicants.
Among the leaders of the Lutheran Reformation, some — and Luther himself was one of them — leaned too far toward transubstantiation. They seemed unable to take at once so bold a leap on the subject as to escape entirely the errors of the papists. It is true that consubstantiation, for which they contended, delivered them from the grosser absurdities and the idolatrous tendencies of the system they renounced. They did not place themselves in direct conflict with men’s external senses, nor were they led to the idolatrous adoration of the bread and the wine; but still they leaned too far toward the literal interpretation, holding that the communicant did literally eat the body and drink the blood of Christ, which was always, in a manner inexplicable, present with the elements.
Others, led by Carolostadt and Zuinglius, went to an opposite extreme, attaching no farther import to the words, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood,” than that the elements were merely signs, or figures, assisting the faith to apprehend the absent body and blood of the Lord. This view is in close correspondence with that of the modern Socinians. The true scriptural view of the subject, as we conceive, lies between these two extremes, and was advocated by Calvin, and is now the creed of the Protestant churches generally, While it rejects the literal presence of the body and blood of Christ, as held by Luther and the abettors of consubstantiation, it admits with Carolostadt and Zuinglius that the elements are signs, symbols, or figures, of the literal body and blood of Christ. But it goes one step farther. It considers the elements not only as a sign, but also as a seal of the new covenant. This idea appears to be implied in the words of Christ, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood;” and in the words of Paul, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”
Hence we conclude that, in this ordinance,
1. No change is effected in the elements; the bread and the wine are not literally the body and blood of Christ.
2. The body and blood of Christ are not literally present with the elements, and received by the communicants.
3. But the elements are signs, or symbols, of the body and blood of Christ, serving as a memorial of his sufferings on the cross and a help to the faith of the communicant.
4. The elements also possess a sacramental character, being a divinely appointed seal of the covenant of redemption. As the blood of the paschal lamb served as a seal of this covenant under the old dispensation, pointing the faith of the Israelite to the coming Redeemer, it was fit that, as the old