← Back to sermon library

Heavenly Father, we thank you 
for this blessed Lord's Day. We thank you that we can gather 
together here as the saints of the Lord Jesus Christ to study 
doctrine in this hour prior to worship. And we do pray that 
you'd help us by your spirit, that we might understand aright 
the things of your revealed truth. We do pray that you'd help us 
to be rejoicing in Christ Jesus, our Savior, knowing that in Him 
we have the fullness and perfection of salvation, and not because 
of anything good in us, but solely and alone because of your grace 
and because of that perfection of His work, that He did all 
that your law required in our stead, that He died that curse-bearing 
substitutionary sacrifice upon the cross in the place of all 
who believe in Him, and that He rose victoriously the third 
day. And we just rejoice now that He has ascended at Your 
right hand, that He ever lives to intercede for His people. 
And we pray that He would send His Spirit now in our midst, 
that we might rejoice in Your truth. And we pray in Christ's 
name, Amen. If you have a confession, you 
can turn to chapter 30. If you don't have a confession, 
you can't turn to chapter 30. So if you need one, the blue 
basket of purest orthodoxy is with Wim, and he will find you. I'm going to read chapter 30, 
all eight paragraphs, and then we'll have a look, more of a 
high-level look at the doctrine of the Lord's Supper with some 
observations from this particular chapter. So this is chapter 30, 
beginning at paragraph 1. The supper of the Lord Jesus 
was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, 
to be observed in the churches unto the end of the world. for 
the perpetual remembrance and showing forth the sacrifice in 
his death, confirmation of the faith of believers and all the 
benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, 
their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe 
to him, and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with 
him and with each other. In this ordinance, Christ is 
not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at 
all for the remission of sin, of the quick or dead, but only 
a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon 
the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible 
praise unto God for the same. so that the Popish sacrifice 
of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious 
to Christ's own only sacrifice and the alone propitiation for 
all the sins of the elect. The Lord Jesus hath, in this 
ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray and bless the elements 
of bread and wine and thereby to set them apart from a common 
to unholy use and to take and break the bread, to take the 
cup, and they, and they communicating also themselves 
to give both to the communicants. The denial of the cup to the 
people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up or carrying 
them about for adoration and reserving them for any pretended 
religious use are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance 
and to the institution of Christ. The outward elements in this 
ordinance, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, 
have such relation to him crucified as that truly, although in terms 
used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the name 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, as they were before. That doctrine, which maintains 
a change of substance of bread and wine into the substance of 
Christ's body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by 
consecration of a priest or by any other way, is repugnant not 
to scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason. overthroweth 
the nature of the ordinance and hath been and is the cause of 
manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries. Worthy receivers, 
outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do 
then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally 
and corporally, but spiritually receive and feed upon Christ 
crucified and all the benefits of his death, the body and blood 
of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually 
present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements 
themselves are to their outward senses. All ignorant and ungodly 
persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, 
so are they unworthy of the Lord's table and cannot, without great 
sin against Him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, 
or be admitted thereunto. Yea, whosoever shall receive 
unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating 
and drinking judgment to themselves. So it's a good extensive chapter 
on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, larger than the doctrine 
of baptism, I think largely speaking because of the fact that this 
is the most polemical chapter in the entirety of the confession. 
its language contra Rome, contra the Roman Catholic mass and the 
abhorrence of transubstantiation, is replete throughout while it 
positively upholds the proper doctrine of the Lord's Supper. 
There was at that time, no doubt, the prevalence of the Roman Catholic 
Church, not only the prevalence of that church so-called, and 
their doctrine of the mass and the Lord's Supper, but also they 
were actively opposing the Reformed churches with tracts, with preaching, 
with interaction with the laity, seeking to distort or to disrupt 
the movement of the Reformation as it continued along. Just a 
brief look back at chapter 28, remember that Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper are ordinances or sacraments ordained by our 
risen and exalted Christ. Notice paragraph one of chapter 
28. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and 
sovereign institution appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, 
to be continued in his church to the end of the world. That 
reality of the institution and the end of the world reality 
of the ordinance is picked up and carried up in paragraph one 
of this particular chapter of the Lord's Supper. Now just a 
brief note with regards to interconnectivity to other chapters throughout 
the Confession. In this This doesn't exhaust the interconnectivity, 
but as we consider the Lord's Supper, when we consider the 
Lord's Supper, we can note that chapter seven could be notably 
in view, the covenantal backdrop to the covenantal meal. Jesus 
uses the language in the institution of the Lord's Supper on the night 
in which he was betrayed, where he says that this wine is, or 
this cup, is the cup of the new covenant in my blood. So there 
is an intimate covenantal connection as Christ is ratifying the covenant 
of grace, as he is ratifying the new covenant in his blood. The night before he does so, 
he institutes this supper, which is a commemoration of his death 
until he comes again, and it is intimately connected to that 
covenant ratification. So chapter seven, chapter eight 
on the doctrine of Christ, as we'll see in here, when they're 
opposing negatively, when they're opposing at the point of the 
Lord's Supper, the Roman Catholic Church, they bring up or they 
talk about that blasphemy of the mass or transubstantiation 
being an affront to the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ 
and their doctrine of transubstantiation is also an affront to the historical 
doctrine of Christ concerning his person, very God and very 
man, yet one Christ. Also, chapter 14 on the doctrine 
of faith. If we have time, we'll note a 
connection there with regards to the means of grace. Chapter 
26, the doctrine of the church. Chapter 11, the doctrine of justification. Chapter 22, the doctrine of worship. with sin in the background, the 
doctrine of sin from chapter six, and then no doubt with the 
final two chapters concerning eschatology specifically at paragraph 
eight, and the judgment of those ungodly and ignorant persons. Before we move to some high-level 
just simple treatments of some of the points in the paragraphs. Some historical approaches to 
the Lord's Supper and where the Reformed position falls in. One historical approach to the 
Lord's Supper we could call, what the Confession uses here 
in the language opposed to Rome, is transubstantiation. That's 
of course the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that upon 
consecration by a priest, the bread and the wine are substantially 
changed into the real body, blood, and divinity, body, soul, and 
divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, though, to the outward senses, 
the bread remains bread, the wine remains wine. Consubstantiation, 
the Lutheran church, the idea that upon consecration, the body 
and the blood of Christ are in, with, and under the elements 
of the bread and wine as the communicants participate in the 
Lord's Supper. And this, the next one we could 
call mystical anaphoric epiclesis. If you don't get programs, ponies, 
and puppets at Free Grace Baptist Church, you will get phrases 
like mystical anaphoric epiclesis. That would be the eastern right. 
That would be the eastern orthodox churches, where they don't have 
the same level of of, what would we say, metaphysical and philosophical 
language that the Catholics might have, but nevertheless, in a 
prayer of invocation, within a prayer of lifting up praise 
to God in order to bless the communicants, they believe that 
the Holy Spirit, by invocation, changes the bread and the wine 
into the body and blood of Christ, though they don't have any developed 
doctrine of transubstantiation. That's why they would call it 
mystical, because we don't really define or know what is taking 
place with regards to the change, but it's believed nonetheless. 
We could call the fourth one Episcopal via Media. The Anglican Church navigates 
not all of them, some of them are closer to transubstantiation, 
some of them are closer to the reformed view, but largely they 
would have a mediating position, a via media, between the extremism 
of transubstantiation and the extremism on the other side of 
an exclusive commemorative meal, a memorial only, which is the 
next one, exclusively commemorative, a memorial meal emphasizing only 
the commemorative and proclamational aspects of the Lord's Supper 
without believing that it is a means of grace whereby the 
ascended Christ blesses his communicants with the Holy Spirit and growth 
in grace. And then the last one would be 
the one that the confession is upholding, reformed spiritual 
presence. There's a subtle difference to the Baptist approach. Just 
backing up for a moment, exclusive commemorative would be the General 
Baptists, historically, among others, historically and to our 
own day. But the General Baptists in the 
16th or in the 17th centuries and beyond would hold to that, 
largely speaking. But Reformed spiritual presence, 
the Presbyterians, the Congregational Reformed, the congregational 
lists in England, and the particular Baptists would hold to reform 
spiritual presence. The Baptists would have a subtly 
modified view connected to credo-baptism, stating that only those who have 
been credo-baptized should be the worthy or lawful recipient. Well, believers, of course, but 
believers who have been baptized are those who are the proper 
recipients of the Lord's Supper. So let's have a look at the confession 
of faith here then that we're going to notice first. The Lord's 
Supper and its Necessary Corporate Observance. The Lord's Supper 
and its Necessary Corporate Observance. Notice, the supper of the Lord 
Jesus was first instituted by him. So, on the night in which 
he was betrayed, or on the same night wherein he was betrayed. 
So, it's an institution of the Lord Jesus Christ, which then 
makes it, of course, a necessary corporate observance. It's been 
instituted by the Lord of the church, And so the church is 
to observe that which the Lord himself has instituted. And just 
by a side note, I know Calvin and Gil and others have noted, 
I was just reading Keech on the supper as well, the connection 
or the significance of on the night in which he was betrayed. 
They'll say things like, what a blessing that the Lord Jesus 
Christ, on the very night in which he was betrayed, gave his 
disciples this ordinance, this sacrament, this meal of remembrance 
and growth in grace, as they were about to be thrust into, 
first, the sadness of His death. but the very virtue and efficacy 
of the death at the heart of the Lord's Supper and given to 
the disciples as they go forth into a hateful world and preach 
the very death that the Lord's Supper signifies. It's a wonderful 
condescending compassion on the part of Christ that he gives 
this departing meal. to his disciples. So it's instituted 
by him and it is to be observed. Notice the language that the 
Lord's Supper is, to be observed in his churches unto the end 
of the world. We'll see in the next clause 
that it's perpetual. So it's been given by Christ 
and it's a perpetual remembrance to be observed in his churches 
and to the end of the world. And so we are to observe the 
Lord's Supper as a command given by our Christ, but not a command 
that doesn't, with it or attended to it, have the power to enable 
those to do the command, like the Mosaic Articles or the Mosaic 
Institutions, but rather one that bears the very power by 
the Spirit for us to obey. Gil says, they are good and amiable, 
that is, the laws given by Christ, and lovely in their own nature, 
and are cheerfully complied with and abundance of spiritual pleasure 
and delight is enjoyed in them by believers, when they have 
the presence of God, the assistance of His Spirit, and discoveries 
of His love." It's a wonderful thing to partake of the Lord's 
Supper. We don't engage in any obedience to any command, as 
some who are to be, you know, the fearful adherents to tyrannical 
precepts. But because we've been brought 
forth by God, by amazing grace, we've been gifted with the Spirit 
of God, and it is in love and it is with joy that we comply 
with the blessed institutions of the Lord Jesus Christ. So 
the Lord's Supper has a necessary corporate observance. Notice 
the language here, to be observed in his churches. unto the end 
of the world. It's not a private thing. We're 
not to be maverick Christians who somehow give ourselves the 
Lord's Supper. Not that that happens very often, 
at least I don't think it does. But it's a corporate observance. 
As brothers and sisters in Christ, we gather together as a band 
of brothers and sisters with a common Savior, with a common 
faith, and with a common baptism, and we observe this blessed sacrament 
together. So it's a necessary corporate 
observance. Secondly, the Lord's Supper properly 
observed. We'll look thirdly at the Lord's 
Supper perversely observed, but now let's have a look at the 
Lord's Supper properly observed. And the first thing we want to 
note is its outward administration. Notice what we see in paragraph 
one. So to be observed in his church 
is unto the end of the world for the perpetual remembrance. of himself in his death. So the 
outward exhibition in the Lord's Supper properly observed is seen 
in that it is a memorial meal. As we'll see, it's not only that, 
but it is a commemoration. It is, as the language is used 
here, a perpetual remembrance. Now, the language of commemoration 
can be used largely or it can be used narrowly. The Baptists 
changed the language because of its sort of heavy connection 
within the Roman Catholic Church, I believe, and the connection 
to a ritual, like ritualistic religion. But nevertheless, the 
language here is used for the perpetual remembrance of himself 
in his death. And if you go down a little bit 
in the paragraph, not paragraph one, sorry, but in the middle 
of paragraph two, notice we see, but only a memorial of that one 
offering up of himself by himself upon the cross once for all. 
So we have this outward exhibition where in the Lord's Supper we 
are engaging in a memorial of the Lord Jesus Christ, but not 
a memorial of one dead and not living. but a remembrance of 
that blessed ratification of the covenant of grace, a remembrance 
of his substitutionary, curse-bearing sacrifice, perfectly rendered 
for all who believe in his name. What a blessed thing. Is it a 
solemn time? Yes, it is. but it's also a joyful 
time because he being once dead now lives having been raised 
the third day. And so it's a memorial yet not 
marked by exclusive solemnity, but also joy because our precious 
savior saved us from our sins and now ever lives having been 
raised and ascended to intercede for his people. So first of all, 
with regards to an outward exhibition, it is a remembrance of him. And 
secondly, it is a showing forth of the sacrifice of himself in 
his death. Notice back to paragraph one, 
for the perpetual remembrance and showing forth the sacrifice 
in his death. We proclaim his death till he 
comes, so it's a remembrance, do this in remembrance of me, 
but it's also a proclamation of the gospel. In the Lord's Supper, in the 
proper observance of it, we're preaching the gospel. It's a 
picture of the very gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. wrote this in opposition to the 
display of crosses and images in churches. He wrote, when I 
consider the proper end for which churches are erected, it appears 
to me more unbecoming their sacredness than I well can tell. To admit 
any other images than those living symbols which the Lord has consecrated 
by his own word, I mean baptism in the Lord's Supper. Those are 
the only proper images that a church is to have, that a church is 
to display, those blessed ordinances given by the Lord Jesus Christ. as we think of and meditate upon 
and learn about the Lord's Supper, we're to see that proclamational 
value, that the proper observance of it is such that it preaches 
the very gospel of Jesus Christ. And then third, with regards 
to an outward exhibition, we see that there is a sacrifice, 
but it's a spiritual one and marked by praise. Notice in paragraph 
two, only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by 
himself upon the cross once for all, and a spiritual oblation, 
that means sacrifice, an offering, of all possible praise unto God 
for the same. So it certainly is not blasphemy, 
a real, literal, unbloody sacrifice offered up to the Father by a 
Romish voodoo priest, but it is a sacrifice, a spiritual one, 
a spiritual sacrifice. When we're praising God, even 
if we just consider worship, generally speaking, we are offering 
up spiritual oblations to God, spiritual sacrifices acceptable 
to God through the mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ. And so 
in the observance of the Lord's Supper, that's what we're doing. 
We're offering up unto God praise for the same that is the once 
for all offering up of Christ by himself upon the cross. He 
offered up himself for us. We offer up our praises to God. for that perfect work. Secondly, 
under the Lord's Supper properly observed, we want to note, the 
inward provision. So we see its outward exhibition, 
and now we see its inward provision. Back to paragraph one. for the 
perpetual remembrance and showing forth the sacrifice in His death, 
confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits 
thereof." So, first of all, it's this confirmation. We have this 
wonderful securing, if you will, or confidence given to us in 
the Lord's Supper because not only does it, first off, remind 
us of that finished work, but secondly, by the Spirit, we are 
communicated a measure of grace as we grow in our faith and in 
our perseverance and also in the very confirmation of our 
faith. If you turn in your Bibles for a second to Hebrews, I think 
this is what's in view this connection in Hebrews chapter 8 and this 
whole section of course from 8 through to sort of the middle 
to end of 10 when the transition then goes from theology to exhortative 
writing. It's treating the perfect work 
of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the perfect priest who 
offered up a perfect sacrifice. Notice in 8.6, but now he, Christ, 
has obtained a more excellent ministry inasmuch as he is also 
mediator of a better covenant which was established on better 
promises. And then when we get to Hebrews 
10, notice the language beginning at verse 19. Therefore, brethren, 
having boldness to enter the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 
by a new and living way, which he consecrated for us through 
the veil that is his flesh, and having a high priest over the 
house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance 
of faith. And so, that is what Christ has 
secured for us by his perfect death, by the offering up of 
himself, by himself, upon the cross once for all, this confirmation 
of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof. We 
need not fear, we need not come to the Lord's Supper as those 
who are coming, again, as fearful adherence to a tyrannical Lord, 
but rather as those who, yes, have a proper reverential fear 
that come to the Lord of their profession, knowing that He has 
secured perfectly their salvation. And as we remember and as we 
proclaim that death, we avail of these benefits by faith. also notice their spiritual nourishment. We see the language, their spiritual 
nourishment and growth in him. So the second of these inward 
provisions is that we inwardly by faith spiritually receive 
the benefits of Christ crucified. By the Spirit, we receive these 
blessed elements, if you will, of growth in our faith by grace 
that comes from God. Notice at paragraph seven. with 
respect to spiritual nourishment, with respect to this language 
of feeding and receiving. Paragraph 7, you know, for those 
who might have a more memorialistic view and who are, you know, I 
remember coming out of the Roman Catholic Church so many years 
ago and reading this paragraph for the first time, you know, 
having obviously come and done a 180 from coming outside the 
Roman Catholic Church with transubstantiation or the sacrifice of the mass 
being central to that religion. I came to paragraph 7 and initially 
I struggled a little bit because of the language, but as I grew 
in Christ, the language is glorious. worthy receivers, outwardly partaking 
of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly 
by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, 
but spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified and all 
the benefits of his death. Notice as it continues here, 
the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or 
carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in 
that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to the outward 
senses. And I think as we engage, as 
we partake of the Lord's Supper, I think we should all have this 
in the background. When we're taking of the bread 
and taking of the wine, we should be drawing a connection that 
just as sure as the bread is to our physical senses, so too 
is the body of Christ that the bread represents present to us 
spiritually as we receive it by faith. It's a blessed connection 
that we ought to draw in the Lord's Supper, just as sure as 
the wine is to our physical senses, so too is the blood of Christ 
present to us whereby we feed upon him spiritually, not carnally. I think we can always work on 
our our hold upon and our grip upon what the Lord's Supper actually 
is. Because I think it's very easy 
for us, A, to just go through the process itself, go through 
that liturgy and the Lord's Supper and just go through it as if 
it's just a mechanistic expression of our religion. Or that we do 
simply have an exclusively commemorative approach to the meal and we don't 
imbibe or we don't appropriate or we don't properly acknowledge 
the spiritual reality that we are spiritually feeding upon 
Christ crucified and all the benefits of his death. Thirdly 
and lastly, under the inward provision, notice the body and 
blood of Christ, well, this is more of a repetition, but the 
spiritual presence of the body and blood of Christ. And when 
the confession is, the confession says here the body and blood 
of Christ not being then corporally or carnally present, that's not 
simply saying that, you know, excluding the idea that Christ 
is there by his humanity, but a specific shot against the wretched 
bow of the Roman Catholic Church, who do believe that it is corporally, 
that is physically and carnally in the flesh, present in the 
bread and in the wine. Notice, thirdly, then, under 
the Lord's Supper properly observed, so we have outward exhibition, 
inward provision, and thirdly, it's solemn commitment. Notice 
in paragraph one near the end that it is, the Lord's Supper 
is to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him and 
with each other. a bond and pledge. So we have 
the language of John 6 and also the language of 1 Corinthians 
10 in the background here when we have this vertical connection 
at the Lord's Supper to the risen and exalted Christ. So that communion 
with him vertically, and then also this horizontal communion 
that we have one with each other at the Lord's Supper. We should 
never think that the Lord's Supper is an individualistic, though 
in the context of the corporate church gathered, something just 
for you. It is for you. being a worthy 
receiver by virtue of Christ and not yourself, but we're taking 
it together. We have a communion one with 
each other. Those who are together by the 
same Lord, by the same spirit, by the same baptism, by the same 
faith, are together in the Lord's Supper. We're remembering together, 
we're proclaiming together, and we're availing of the grace of 
Christ together. You can turn with me to John 
6 for a moment. In John 6, remember John 6 isn't 
a Lord's Supper passage, but it does contain the theology 
of the Lord's Supper in it, when the Lord Jesus speaks about a 
veiling of his body and blood by faith. Using these pictures, 
these physical pictures to express this spiritual reality. And notice 
what we see here in John 6. We can maybe, let's see, we'll 
go to verse 56. He who eats my flesh and drinks 
my blood abides in me and I in him. This solemn commitment to 
our communion with Christ. What blessed language, and hopefully 
you can see the connection to the Lord's Supper. Before that, 
my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who 
eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. We 
have this connection to Christ by faith. Generally speaking, 
the eating of his body, the eating of his flesh and the drinking 
of his blood has to do with those who hunger and thirst after him 
by faith. He's not literally saying that 
you are eating my flesh and drinking my blood, but figuratively speaking, 
those who hunger and thirst feed upon Christ crucified and all 
the benefits of his death. by faith, spiritually speaking, 
but we abide in him and he abides in us. We have this blessed communion 
with him and then of course with each other. Fourthly, under the 
Lord's Supper properly observed, we have its simple administration. 
Notice in paragraph three, what we have here is prayer, blessing, 
consecration, a giving, and a united taking. The Lord Jesus hath, 
in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray. And in 
that prayer, the minister then blesses the elements of bread 
and wine, and by that, in that prayer, in that blessing, the 
elements of bread and wine are consecrated. They're set apart. We read here that the ministers 
thereby set them apart from a common to a holy use. Beforehand, they 
were of a common use. We could eat the same bread and 
drink the same wine. But they're taken, they are consecrated, 
they are set apart from that common use to a use that is holy 
within the context of the worshiping church. So we don't have this 
this weird, mystical view of the bread and the wine a la Rome, 
Eastern Orthodoxy, and to a certain degree, the High Lutherans, but 
we do have a reverence for the ordinance, and we do have a marked 
respect for the elements because of what they signify. First of 
all, because they're consecrated within the context of the gathered 
church by a minister duly ordained unto the task, but secondly, 
because of what the bread and what the wine signify. The emphasis 
is not on the signs or those things which are signaling, but 
that which they are signifying, which is Christ, his body, and 
his blood shed upon the cross. So we have its simple administration, 
as we'll note when we get to the Lord's Supper perversely 
observed, we'll note that there is a complex and a mad administration 
that is set opposed to that which is simple. from the pages of 
Scripture. And then lastly, notice the symbolic 
elements. Under the Lord's Supper, properly 
observe the symbolic elements. Paragraph 5, the outward elements 
in this ordinance duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ 
have such relation to him as that truly, although in terms 
used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the name of the things 
they represent. In other words, we can call the 
bread the body of Christ, and we can call the wine the blood 
of Christ, because of the fact that they are figuratively representing 
that which is Christ. So that's why it says here, although 
in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the name 
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 as they were before. That's why Pastor 
Butler, when he's administering the Lord's Supper, will say that 
the bread and wine remain bread and wine. He's speaking with 
regards to, yes, the confessional expression, but also the biblical 
witness, that the Lord Jesus Christ consecrated bread and 
wine also at the institution, but it was, and he always called 
it, it's something that the Protestants observed in their contentions 
with Rome, that he calls it bread before he blesses it, and he 
calls it bread after he blesses it, and gives it to his disciples 
to eat. It doesn't change. Even after 
we read, this is my body and this is my blood, we read that 
he gave it to his disciples and they ate, and it remains bread 
and wine. It doesn't become something else. 
As we'll see in a moment, that it becomes something else, though 
is still to the outward senses bread and wine, is contrary to 
common sense and reason and repugnant to the scriptures. So there is 
no ridiculous mysticism or nonsense, but just the sober and joy-filled 
recognition of the symbolic significance. And that is that the bread is 
figuratively the body of Christ, and that the wine is figuratively 
the blood of Christ. And we ought to be joyful, as 
we noted previously, taking it with a measure of solemnity, 
reverence, for the God of the ordinance and by virtue of that, 
participating in it, but also there should be great joy that 
we're taking of bread that signifies Christ's body broken for us. 
that we should have been broken and judged, and we should have 
bore the wrath of God for our sin. But in condescension and 
amazing grace, Christ gave his body for us. It was broken for 
us, and not in violation of the Levitical sacrifice typically 
represented that pointed forward to Christ, where the bones were 
not broken, and not in violation to Psalm 22, et cetera. Now, 
as I think Henry says, the breaking there has to do with the fact 
that Christ, in his body, took breach upon breach of his flesh 
and was obviously bearing the wrath of God in our stead for 
our sins, and so not a bone of his body was broken, yet he was 
broken in his body when he was taking the sins of his people. 
And then, of course, as we take the wine, we ought to rejoice 
in the shed blood of the Savior who took upon himself the wrath 
of God in our stead and shed that blood so that we may have 
remission. The Lord's Supper then perversely 
observed. The Lord's Supper perversely 
observed, first, the perversity of an actual sacrifice. Notice 
in paragraph two, in this ordinance, Christ is not offered up to his 
father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for the remission 
of sin of the quick or dead. And then at the end, so that 
the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, 
injurious to Christ's own only sacrifice, the alone propitiation 
for all the sins of the elect. In the doctrine of the mass, 
Rome actually believes that though they are not offering up a bloody 
sacrifice, because that was once for all, yet they still are offering 
up an unbloody sacrifice. They're offering up the Son of 
God again to the Father for the sins of the people. That's why 
they say it's injurious to Christ's own only sacrifice. because Christ 
died once for all for the sins of the people. We do not need 
to repeatedly have that. That's why they do mass every 
day in the Roman Catholic Church, because Christ did not finish 
it on the cross. There needs to be this sacramental 
offering up again of Christ for the ongoing sins of the people, 
and that it is an act of propitiation, that the priest has the power 
to call down the Lord Jesus Christ, to enter into the elements, and 
to offer it up as a sacrifice for the sins of the people as 
a propitiation. That's why we rightly call it 
abominable, that's why we rightly call it injurious, that's why 
we rightly call it blasphemy, and it should be opposed to the 
very end. So we have the perversity of 
an actual sacrifice. We have, secondly, the perversity 
of an obvious idolatry. Notice in paragraph four, the 
denial of the cup to the people, worshiping the elements, the 
lifting them up or carrying them about for adoration, and reserving 
them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the 
nature of this ordinance and to the institution of Christ. 
We have this idolatry. They hold up and lift up the 
host, they call it. They call it the host because 
it hosts the very body, soul, and divinity of the Lord Jesus 
Christ. The priest, again, has the power, as they blasphemously 
hold, to call down Christ. There's a horrible horrible writing, 
if you ever want to read horrible writing, email me and I'll send 
this to you. But it's a reflection on what 
the Roman Catholic priests, what the Roman Catholic magisterium 
actually believe the Christ, having a measure of omnipotence 
almost over Christ, and he willingly submits to the command of the 
priest to enter into the bread and the wine. I don't think we 
appreciate enough the actual blasphemy and idolatry that the 
Roman Catholic Church engages in. You can see there, if you 
want to YouTube, the Corpus Christi processions. you can see the 
height of their idolatry. You go to places in Italy and 
there's a procession with the bishops and the cardinals and 
the altar boys and with this, the host in this golden star. I mean, it would, something you'd 
see out of, you know, ancient pagan and heathen worship and 
they call it Christianity. What a mess and what an abhorrence 
before God. So the perversity of an actual 
idolatry, we'll talk a little bit about that more in a moment. 
Thirdly, though, the perversity of an invisible substantial change. Notice what we have in paragraph 
six. that doctrine which maintains the change of the substance of 
bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood, commonly 
called transubstantiation by consecration of a priest or by 
any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but notice, 
even to common sense and reason. The absurdity of the idea that 
the bread and the wine remain bread and wine to all of the 
senses. We see bread and we see wine. Hearing maybe not so much, though, 
if we did this, we could sense it was food, and if we poured 
the wine, we could hear that it's liquid being poured out. 
We touch it, you know, tactilely, or tactilely, that's probably 
not a word, texturally, the feeling of the bread, and the feeling 
of the wine, were we to pour it upon our hands, or dip our 
finger into it, we would know that it's bread, and that it's 
wine, to the taste. We know that it's bread and wine, 
but somehow, mystically and magically, and according to the madness 
of their voodoo, it is, nevertheless, substantially, the body, soul, 
and divinity of Jesus Christ. It's madness. So they believe, 
again, that though to the outward senses, they still remain truly 
and only bread and wine as they were before, nevertheless, substantially, 
and their very nature is now the body, soul, and divinity 
of Jesus Christ. That'll be probably the last 
time I repeat that phrase, because it's horrible. And it's contrary 
to scripture, the absurdity of it, we don't need divine special 
revelation to recognize the absurdity of transubstantiation. The scriptures 
certainly speak against it, but even the pagan and the heathen 
can know by virtue of the light of nature. that it's an abhorrence 
or that it just doesn't make sense. They probably wouldn't 
say it's an abhorrence, but that it's just silly. Teach writes 
this. Benjamin Keech in his Tropologia, 
which is cool, really good book on types and anti-types and that 
sort of a thing, and he has a section on the Lord's Supper. It was 
written in 1681, so four years after the initial, maybe not 
publication, but writing of the Confession of 1689. He writes this, we shall show 
that it is utterly against sense and reason as well as contrary 
to scripture as you have heard, I think maybe as you have heard 
could be the confession that they had, but also as is regularly 
preached and taught. What greater evidence can there 
be of things than what sense affordeth? But if this which 
the papists affirm about the consecrated bread being the real 
body of Christ be true, the senses of all the world are deceived. 
For since the great argument for Christianity, as all agree, 
was the words that Christ spoke and the works which Christ did, 
now how could we be sure he did so speak or so work if we may 
not credit the reports of our eyes and ears? It's a wonderful, 
simple statement with regards to the fact that it is repugnant 
to common sense and reason. And as Pastor Butler has noted 
before, in administering the Lord's Supper, it's an affront 
also to the doctrine of Christ. There are serious Christological 
problems. Let's just Let's just observe 
what we just observed. Are there Christological problems 
to say that Christ, body, soul, and divinity are the very substance 
of the bread and the wine? Absolutely. Not only at the point 
of divinity, as if bread and wine can substantially change 
but outwardly not change and be the very divinity of Christ, 
but simply with respect but simply with respect to his humanity 
as well. The Christological problem with the divinity, of course, 
is already spoken, but at the point of the humanity, remember 
what our confession says, inheriting a theological tradition from 
Chalcedon in the 5th century, that while the divinity and the 
humanity of Christ are united in the one person, they are not 
confused, they are not conflated, they are not commingled. The 
humanity of Christ does not gain the divine attribute of omnipresence 
or ubiquity, the everywhere-ness of the divinity. And so, to say 
that the humanity of Christ can be everywhere, So in the wafer 
and in the wine is an affront to the very doctrine of Christ 
that they would seek to vigorously defend. Keech says this on this 
point, we'll get to some questions here in a moment with just one 
closing point, but Keech wrote this, now then, saith Mr. Poole, 
according to their doctrine, the same body of Christ is bigger 
than itself and longer than itself, and which is worse, Christ is 
divided from himself. I know not what can be more impossible 
than to say that all Christ is at Rome and all at London, and 
all in heaven, and yet not all in the places between. And Raymond 
writes this, both the Roman Catholic view and Lutheran view contend, 
and we could throw in that the Eastern Orthodox view, though 
they're not as definitive in how they define it, that the 
communicant is actually feeding upon the physical body and blood 
of Christ. Since both views advocate that 
Christ is physically present in the elements, Grave theological 
problems arise relative to the nature of Christ's humanity since 
both must describe ubiquity, everywhere-ness, to his humanity. But this is to destroy the true 
humanity of Christ and to forsake Chalcedon's Christology, and 
then he quotes it, the difference of the natures being by no means 
removed because of the union but the property of each nature 
being preserved. And so the doctrine that our 
confessional forebears are opposing is an affront to common sense 
and reason. And fourthly, the perversity, 
and the scriptures, the perversity of an irrational mysticism, the 
end of paragraph six. Notice, but even to common sense 
and reason, This is that doctrine of transubstantiation. Overthroweth 
the nature of the ordinance, and hath been and is the cause 
of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries. I'm looking 
at the clock because I want us to observe a couple. We'll have 
a question period in three minutes and 37 seconds. Observe some of these things 
that are manifold superstitions and gross idolatries. Notice, 
this doctrine of transubstantiation is foundationally, it's the generative 
blasphemy of a number of other blasphemies. For example, Eucharistic 
adoration. We already noted that. Gross 
idolatries and superstitions, the walking around, the parading 
of Christ as if he's in a wafer surrounded by gold and silver 
and bejeweled with the madness of Catholic overexcesses. The Corpus Christi processions. 
The rules and fears regarding desecration. When our confession 
says in paragraph Four, the denial of the cup to the people. The 
reason they started to deny the cup to the people is because 
they didn't want Christ spilled on the ground. In the wine, because 
it's the very body, soul, and divinity of Jesus, if you spill 
the wine, You're spilling Jesus, and that's what they believe. 
They have a whole rite connected to desecration where they have 
to come with various implements and cloths and dab up Jesus on 
the ground. It's absolutely ridiculous. And 
if you ever dropped a wafer in the Catholic Church, man, would 
you ever get the peering eye of the magician priest as he 
thinks you're just the worst person in the universe? Or the 
slap of a nun, exactly, yeah. The Eucharistic miracles in history, 
in order to defend their blasphemy of transubstantiation, the Roman 
Catholics conjured up a number of weird miracles. Like, for 
example, for those who have been here long enough, you'll know 
the bee story. Yes. So the bee story. There's a couple different ones, 
but in one of the bee miracles, a pastor, a pastor, a priest 
visits a communicant who couldn't come to mass with the host so 
that she can, so that she can eat Jesus literally. and he forgets 
a wafer at the house. He's driving away, I guess he's 
not driving, because it's the medieval era. He's on a horse, 
or he's in a horse carriage. He realizes that he left the 
host at the lady's house, so he goes back, but in the meantime, 
after he had left and returned, bees had come and picked up the 
host and brought it back to their hive, and when he opened the 
hive, they had created a mini altar, and two bees were serving 
as priests, administering the host to bees and the beehive. 
So when our confession says that it is the cause of manifold superstitions, 
yea of gross idolatries, they're letting the Catholics off easy. 
So, and stories of magical hosts. There are stories of, that they 
would say, they would say that Jews would steal the host and 
stab them with knives, which maybe they did, but then the 
bread would bleed because, and proving the, you know, the efficacy 
of their doctrine. So, we'll leave it at that. The 
Lord's Supper. There's also stories of magical 
hosts, where people would steal the host and try and use them 
to help their crops grow better. So anyway. Fourthly and lastly, 
and then we'll just have some questions, this is briefly, the 
Lord's Supper and its careful exclusivity and warning. The 
final paragraph, there is great warning connected to the Lord's 
Supper, all ignorant and ungodly persons, notice, as they're unfit 
to enjoy communion with Christ, so generally speaking, So are 
they unworthy of the Lord's table specifically, and cannot without 
great sin against Him, while they remain such, partake of 
these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto. And that calls upon 
themselves judgment from God for treating the ordinance in 
an ungodly manner. So, for us, the Lord's Supper 
is a blessed ordinance where it, yes, is a memorial and proclamational 
meal, but also it is a meal whereby, according to chapter 14 and paragraph 
1, though spoken of in this chapter with regards to spiritual nourishment, 
whereby Christ, in His ascended glory, sends His Spirit to feed 
us that we might grow in our faith. It's a means of grace 
whereby we grow in the Lord Jesus Christ and in faith in Him. Let's 
pray and then we'll have any questions that you want to fire 
away with. Heavenly Father, we thank you that we can study this 
ordinance. We rejoice that we do have this sacrament. We pray 
that you'd help us as we grow in the grace and in the knowledge 
of Jesus Christ to grow in our Acknowledgement of an appreciation 
for this sacrament that we wait my glory in it rejoice in it 
Embrace it with the solemnity and with the joy that that it 
does deserve and we thank you for our Savior to whom the ordinance 
points For his body broken upon the tree for his blood shed upon 
the same And that it secures the salvation of a multitude 
which no man can number we pray that you'd go with us now in 
Christ's name Amen. Okay, any questions? Yes, Joy. 
So, I think paragraph seven explains a whole lot. Yeah. But I'm curious 
about, you mentioned corporate worship. Uh-huh. So, Catholic 
tradition, it's a very big deal to have the last communion. Mm-hmm. Anglican has sacrament of the 
sick, anointing of oil. Yep. And I think often pre-communion. 
I'm just wondering, position for people who are sick and also 
for imminent death? Can they have the Lord's Supper 
in the hospital? I think some have done that. 
It's not peculiar to the Catholic Church or the Anglicans or any 
sort of Episcopal type of approach, but there's a significant difference 
in view. The Roman Catholics and their 
adherents, so the priests and the adherents, have this view 
where there's an absolute necessity that they take it because it 
does contain the very body, soul, and divinity of Christ. So the 
motivation and the drive with Catholics, some high Anglicans, 
and that sort of a thing is they want to give it and the person 
wants to receive it by virtue of that sort of blasphemous efficacy 
that they think the host and the wine have. But I think reformed 
churches have done it, some on occasion, to someone who's unable 
to join the corporate gathering. Anyone else? Comments, questions? Anybody want to know more about 
worshipping bees who can fashion altars? Yes, Nathan. In the Dutch 
reform, it's much more common believers who are also members 
of the local church can attend the table. You mentioned a particular 
Baptist at the time of the confession believing something similar to 
that, because baptism is required. Has it been a progression to 
be more, call it less discerning, less exclusive, more open? And 
what is our church doing the way we do it, as opposed to Well, 
I think there's variations amongst the, for example, the Reformed 
Baptist churches. I would say that there are different 
approaches practically to how there's a fencing of the table 
or an exclusivity applied. I don't know if I want to say 
most, but to a good degree, a lot of the churches have a similar 
view to us where they give an audible sort of proclamational 
warning, a declaration that this is for believers only, and that 
if you take it, if unbelievers take it, then they do, in a measure, 
incur the judgment of God, a la 1 Corinthians 11. So I think 
that the issuing of a warning, I mean, because there were people 
who took it unlawfully, I think to a large degree says that in 
many congregations, they had those who were unbelievers gathering, 
but were given the warning to not take. So I would say there 
are varying degrees amongst the churches. Anything to add, Jim? The emphasis there is on Letterman 
examining himself. So if a warning is given, then ultimately it 
is up to him. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. Right. Yes. Yeah, yeah. No, no. And you know, yeah, and I get 
it. Yeah, go ahead Jim Yeah, yeah Yeah Yeah Any newbies kind of stood out, 
and you could talk to them, and it's different now. So if anybody 
does visit, you know, I had somebody recently ask me, come up to me 
about taking the supper. That particular person isn't 
a member. That's a good thing. I think, you know, talk to the 
elders, and then they can, you know, not speak authoritatively 
or ex cathedra-ish, but, you know, give some advice and encouragement 
to that person. Yeah, thanks Jim. Yeah, good. 
If there are any other questions, maybe approach afterwards because 
I just wanted to close with something. We have recently, in our church, 
changed the way that we approach the Lord's Supper. One of the 
changes that was made is the breaking of the bread. front, 
as you've seen Pastor Butler do the last two Lord's Days, 
that is taken under, you know, sort of a growing understanding 
with regards to how Christ did it in His institution. We read 
that He broke the bread and gave it to His disciples, and we read 
here in paragraph 3, His ministers are to pray, bless the elements 
of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common 
to unholy use, and to take and break the bread, and to take 
the cup, and then to give to communicants. So the reason that 
we made that change was to be more in line with the institution 
made by Christ, the apostolic pattern, and of course what the 
confession upholds in concluding from the word of God. So that's 
why the change. Thanks, everybody. If you have 
any questions, you can come up and fire away.