Practical Religion — Going to the Table

"_Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

_"--1 Cor.

xi.

28. The words which form the title of this paper refer to a subject of vast importance.

That subject is the Sacrament of 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.

Even at this very day the battle is still raging, and Christians seem hopelessly divided.

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 so to be!

I make no excuse for including the Lord's Supper among the leading points of _practical_ Christianity.

I believe firmly that ignorant views or false doctrine about this sacrament lie at the root of half 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 of some minds, I shall 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 Sacrament of the Lord's Supper I shall content myself 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 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_?

I answer that question in the words of the Church Catechism.

I am sure I cannot mend them.

It was ordained "for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby."

--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, for ever let it be rejected, cast aside, and refused by men.

If it is, let us never be ashamed to hold it fast, profess our belief in it, pin our faith on it, and steadfastly refuse to hold any other view, no matter by whom it is taught.

In subjects like this we must call no man master.

It signifies little what great Bishops and learned divines 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.

St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul, all four describe it: all four agree in telling us what our Lord did on this memorable occasion.

--Two only tell us the reason which our Lord assigned why His disciples were to eat the bread and drink the cup.

St. Paul and St. Luke both record the remarkable words, "_Do this in remembrance of Me_."

--St. Paul adds his own inspired comment: "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew (or declare or proclaim) the Lord's death till He come."

(Luke xxii.

19; 1 Cor.

xi.

25, 26. ) When Scripture speaks so plainly, why cannot 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 the "_keeping His death in remembrance_"?

Most certainly it is.

Of all the facts in His earthly ministry none are equal in importance to that of His death.

It was the great satisfaction for man's sin, which had been appointed in God's covenant from the foundation of the world.

It was the great atonement 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 Messiah came into the world.

It was the corner-stone 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 wrought miracles in vain, if He had not _crowned all by dying for our sins as our Substitute_!

His death was our life.

His death was the payment of our debt to God.

Without His death we should have been of all creatures most miserable.

No wonder that an ordinance was specially appointed to remind us of our Saviour's death.

It is the very one thing of which poor, weak, sinful man needs to be continually reminded.

Does the New Testament warrant men in saying that the Lord's Supper was 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.