Who is authorized to oversee the Lord's Supper?

Thus, without confining oneself to the notice of any particular body, the practice of appointing particular officials, whose sole right and title* it is to administer the bread and wine to each communicant, is clean contrary to the teaching of Scripture, and flies in the face of the evident intention of God, quite as much as the distressing conduct of the Corinthians themselves. For what is the Lord's Supper? Is it not the family feast? When you derange the Father's order among the members of His family, or when you bring in those that are not of His family, its character is gone, it is the family feast no more. Let us then assume the least unfavourable supposition of a Christian company, and of none but Christians. Yet supposing that the administration, as men call it, of the Supper of the Lord is committed to a real minister of Christ, or to all who are His ministers, as the exclusive prerogative of such as minister only — I put the most favourable form which can be conceived for the popular notion — under any and all circumstances, it is a human invention, not only without the authority of Christ, but decidedly contrary to the doctrine and facts recorded in scripture. I admit ministry most fully; but the Lord's Supper has no connection with it. Make it a necessary function of those that rule to administer the bread and wine, and it bears not even an outward resemblance to the Lord's Supper. It becomes a sacrament, not His Supper; a manifest innovation, a decided and complete departure from what the Lord has laid down in His word. The very idea of a person standing apart and claiming to administer it as a right alters and ruins the Supper of the Lord. That Supper, according to scripture, leaves no room for the display of human importance in the pretensions of a clergy; least of all when the apostles were on earth. Blessed and honoured of God as these were at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, they were there in His presence as souls that were saved from sin and its judgment by the Lord's death. In the regulation of the churches, in the choice of elders, in the appointment of deacons, they had their own proper place of apostolic dignity. The word of God clearly and fully proves that the administration of the Supper by an official is a figment and tradition of men, wholly wanting the support of scripture.

Let me give a few extracts from the famous work of an able and moderate man, John Calvin: — "It is here also pertinent to observe, that it is improper for private individuals to take upon themselves the administration of baptism, for it, as well as the dispensation of the Supper, is part of the ministerial office; for Christ did not give command to any men or women whatever to baptize, but to those whom He had appointed apostles. And when, in the administration of the Supper, He ordered His disciples to do what they had seen Him do (He having done the part of a legitimate dispenser), He doubtless meant that in this they should imitate His example. The practice which has been in use for many ages, and almost from the very commencement of the church, for laics to baptize in danger of death, when a minister could not be present in time, cannot, it appears to me, be defended on sufficient grounds." (Inst. 4, 15:20.) "For the words of Christ are plain: 'Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them.' (Matt. 28:19) Since He appointed the same persons to be preachers of the gospel and dispensers of baptism in the church — 'No man taketh this honour unto himself' (Heb. 5:4), according to the apostle, 'but he that is called of God, as was Aaron' — any one who baptizes without a lawful call usurps another's office." (Ibid. 22.) Then, in chap. 17:43 of the same book 4, after alluding to some ancient ceremonies in order to dismiss them, he proceeds to say, the Supper "might be administered most becomingly, if dispensed to the church very frequently, at least once a week. The commencement should be with public prayer; next, a sermon should be delivered; then the minister, having placed bread and wine on the table, should read the institution of the Supper, then explain the promise therein left us, and at the same time keep back from communion [excommunicaret] all those who are debarred by the Lord's prohibition. He should, after that, pray that the Lord, according to the kindness in which He bestowed this sacred food on us, would also instruct and form us to receive it with faith and gratitude of mind, and would make us worthy of the feast by His mercy, since we are not so of ourselves. Here either psalms should be sung, or something read, while the faithful, in due order, communicate at the sacred banquet, the ministers breaking the bread and conveying it to the people. The Supper being ended, an exhortation should be given to sincere faith and confession of faith, to charity and manners worthy of Christians. Lastly, thanks should be offered, and praise of God sung. This done, the Church should be dismissed in peace." How man loves to meddle and legislate! Now, it is instructive to observe that the fullest regulation of the Lord's Supper in scripture occurs in 1 Corinthians, that is, in an epistle written to an assembly where as yet elders were not. Such I believe to have been the case; but even if elders did exist there, the fact remains that absolute silence is kept respecting them, where modern thought would have called them in at once to meet the disorder by a proper administration of the Sacrament. This never occurs to the apostle. The whole assembly are admonished on moral grounds. Such is the divine remedy, not an appeal to the elders if they existed, nor a direction to have them appointed in order to correct the abuse if there were none.

Thus, without confining oneself to the notice of any particular body, the practice of appointing Particular officials, whose sole right and title* it is to administer the bread and wine to each communicant, is clean contrary to the teaching of Scripture, and flies in the face of the evident intention of God., quite as much as the distressing conduct of the Corinthians themselves. For what is the Lord's Supper? Is it not the family feast? When you derange the Father's order among the members of His family, or when you bring in those that are not of His family, its character is gone, it is the family feast no more. Let us then assume the least unfavourable supposition of a Christian company, and of none but Christians. Yet supposing that the administration, as men call it, of the Supper of the Lord is committed to a real minister of Christ, or to all who are His ministers, as the exclusive prerogative of such as minister only-I put the most favourable form which can be conceived for the popular notion under any and all circumstances, it is a human invention, not only without the authority of Christ, but decidedly contrary to the doctrine and facts recorded in scripture. I admit ministry most fully; but the Lord's Supper has no connexion with it. Make it a necessary function of those that rule to administer the bread and wine, and it bears not even an outward resemblance to the Lord's Supper. It becomes a sacrament, not His Supper; a manifest innovation, a decided and complete departure from what the Lord has laid down in His word. The very idea of a person standing apart and claiming to administer it as a right alters and ruins the Supper of the Lord. That Supper, according to scripture, leaves no room for the display of human importance in the pretensions of a clergy; least of all when the apostles were on earth. Blessed and honoured of God as these were at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, they were there in His presence as souls that were saved from sin and its judgment by the Lord's death. In the regulation of the churches, in the choice of elders, in the appointment of deacons, they had their own proper place of apostolic dignity. The word of God clearly and fully proves that the administration of the Supper by an official is a figment and tradition of men, wholly wanting the support of scripture.

Let me give a few extracts from the famous work of an able and moderate man, John Calvin:-" It is here also pertinent to observe, that it is improper for private individuals to take upon themselves the administration of baptism, for it, as well as the dispensation of the Supper, is part of the ministerial office; for Christ did not give command to any men or women whatever to baptize, but to those whom He had appointed apostles. And when, in the administration of the Supper, He ordered His disciples to do what they had seen Him do (He having done the part of a legitimate dispenser), He doubtless meant that in this they should imitate His example. The practice which has been in use for many ages, and almost from the very commencement of the church, for laics to baptize in danger of death, when a minister could not be present in time, cannot, it appears to me, be defended on sufficient grounds." (Inst. iv., xv. 20.) 11 For the words of Christ are plain: I Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them.' (Matt. xxviii. 19.) Since He appointed the same persons to be preachers of the gospel and dispensers of baptism in the church'No man taketh this honour unto himself I (Heb. v. 4), according to the apostle, I but he that is called of God, as was Aaron'---any one who baptizes without a lawful call usurps another's office." (Ibid. 22.) Then, in chap. xvii. 43 of the same book iv., after alluding to some ancient ceremonies in order to dismiss them, he proceeds to say, the Supper "might be admini ed most becomingly, if dispensed to the church very frequently, at least once a week. The commencement should be with public prayer; next, a sermon should be delivered; then the minister, having placed bread and wine on the table, should read the institution of the Supper, then explain the promise therein left us, and at the same time keep back from communion [excommunicaret] all those who are debarred by the Lord's prohibition. He should, after that, pray that the Lord, according to the kindness in which He bed-owed this sacred food on us, would also instruct and form us to receive it with faith and gratitude of mind, and would make us worthy of the feast by His mercy, since we an not so of ourselves. Here. either psalms should be sung, or something read, while the faithful, in due order, communicate at the sacred banquet, the ministers breaking the bread and conveying it to the people. The Supper being ended, an exhortation should be given to sincere faith and confession of faith, to charity and manners worthy of Christians. Lastly, thanks should be offered, and praise of God sung. This done, the Church should be dismissed in peace." How man loves to meddle and legislate I Now, it is instructive to observe that the fullest regulation of the Lord's Supper in scripture occurs in I Corinthians, that is, in an epistle written to an assembly where as yet elders were not. Such I believe to have been the came; but even if elders did exist there, the fact remains that absolute allence is kept respecting them, where modern thought would have called them in at once to meet the disorder by a proper administration of the Sacrament. This never occurs to the apostle. The whole assembly are admonished on moral grounds. Such is the divine remedy, not an appeal to the elders if they existed, nor a direction to have them appointed in order to correct the abuse if there were none.

Moreover, while Christendom has sought to correct the unworthy way of partaking of the Supper, it admits to it unworthy people. The national churches cannot exclude from the Supper the unregenerate parishioner. The world is open to partake with the true believer. Further, not only has Christendom entirely altered the character of the Supper, but it has introduced its own order in the observance of it. In general none but a humanly authorised official can administer the Supper. It is striking that in the Epistle, which above all others speaks of God's order for the assembly, there is no mention of deacons, elders or bishops. In the very chapter that deals with gross irregularities there is no suggestion of correcting them by the appointment of an official to administer the Supper. The true character of the Supper is given, the right condition of the soul is insisted upon, but, in the administration of it, all is left to the free and unrestrained guidance of the Holy Spirit. In the chapter that follows we are instructed as to this manifestation of the Spirit in the assembly.

It is remarkable enough that the writer has been unable to quote a single passage of the word of God to establish that the administration of the sacraments must be performed by the ministry. Taking away from it gifts, and attributing to it the right of taking possession of the outward forms — these do very well together: but it is very singular that it never entered the mind of the apostle to propose, as a remedy, the system of the writer. Very far from this, in an epistle which formally treats the subject of the Lord's Supper, the Holy Ghost does not give the slightest hint that the ministry presides; but quite the contrary. The state of things which is described there excludes all idea of such order; and never, in applying a remedy for it, does the idea present itself of making the minister preside: for it is singular that, in the epistle to the Corinthians, where the interior of the administration of a church is given to us, no mention is ever made of the elders. There were some, perhaps; but if there were, the Holy Ghost passes over it, authorizing us to act even when there are none. I exhort those brethren who are occupied with this to weigh such a fact taken from the epistle to the Corinthians.

308 In result, Mr. Wolff, who does not produce a single passage to prove that the ministry did administer the sacraments, admits that simple believers may do it in cases of necessity. We see that what existed at Corinth excludes the idea of such a custom; and when there was a state of disorder, when the opportunity presented itself of reminding them in what order did consist, or of establishing order if it had not yet been done; and if such order as this would have been the remedy according to God, not a syllable about it is said by the apostle — by the word, but means altogether different are used to remove the scandal. We find that, to support his system he is obliged to confound with the Lord's Supper the administration of help intended for the widows. A cause which is thus maintained is not worth much. That in a large assembly the Supper be administered by brethren who enjoy the consideration of all, by an apostle when there was one, is just what suits order; and I have no fault to find with such an ordinance. There is not one expression in the word of God to lead one to suppose that there was any need of a minister for the Supper or for baptism — we even see the contrary — and now I use the word 'ministry' in the sense of the pamphlet, and in whatever sense people may like to use it.

Perhaps, however, you would refer me to the fact that the apostles, and they only, were the persons present when the Supper was instituted, and be disposed to claim that as something to the point. Let us weigh it, then, by all means. Supposing this to be so — that the apostles in their official character, and they alone, received the direction, "Do this in remembrance of me" — what then? It would involve this: that the act was to be apostolic, and so only apostles would be authorized to do it, unless you could adduce some express provision to the contrary, showing who beside might. You will hardly be willing to stand by that, my brother. But how are the facts? If I turn to the account of the Supper by Luke, I find the twelve indeed spoken of there as "the twelve apostles" (Luke 22:14); but when I go to Matthew and to Mark (Matt. 26:19; Mark 14:16), I find them named simply "disciples," a name they share in common with all. So that either they were there in their simple character of believers, and so what was done would apply equally to all others, (the word elsewhere making it clear that it was for others as well as for them) which gives no sanction to any kind of class appointment whatever; or they were there in their own special official character as apostles which would narrow all within their own circle; for the notion that they were representatives, in this, of an ordained ministry, is a mere assumption without a particle of scripture basis; all the weaker that they themselves were never "ordained" at all, in the sense required.

All the guidance we have on the subject, beyond this, is what we meet with in the aforementioned epistle to the Corinthians, in its tenth and eleventh chapters. We there learn that Paul had received the ordinance of the Supper direct from the Lord Himself, and as he had received it so he had delivered it to the Corinthian believers. And does that deliverance include any appointment of a person or class of persons to "administer" it? Not one hint at anything of the kind. And surely, dear brethren, this is all the more remarkable when we consider the circumstances; for truly, if ever a Christian assembly needed to be fully instructed in all that concerned this solemn remembrance, it was the assembly at Corinth; and if ever there was a need of setting some one to preside in full-ordered authority at the table, it was among these Corinthians; where drunkenness and gluttony had intruded on it. Yet not one word did the Spirit of God indite on a point, in man's judgment, so all-important. Abuses are stigmatised, and the custom of blending a common meal with the breaking of bread, divorced from it (1 Cor. 11:34), but no change hinted at as to the order of the matter — not one word It is "the cup of blessing which we bless, the bread which we break," but the we is no apostolic plural of official dignity, but a we of most general character. Why this silence, when speech would seem so desirable? Ah, brethren, to learn to interpret the silences of God is most essential to the understanding of His mind, the most thorough test of obedience and subjection.

But Protestantism has infringed on Christ's institution, not only by impairing the grace of God in the Lord's supper, but by letting in the world as we have seen and by insisting for the most part on an authorised official to administer it. All these ruin its simple, profound, and most affecting significance. Not that one denies for a moment ministry or rule; they are of exceeding moment and will be treated of in their place according to scripture. Yet in the Lord's supper, not only as He instituted it at first but as it was revealed by Him to the apostle in its final shape, none of these things appear. It is essentially as members of the one body that we communicate. Even the gifts are introduced separately and afterwards. Elders, if any, are ignored; and this is the more remarkable, as the occasion might have seemed exactly one to have reminded them of the disorder allowed at Corinth, if it had really been their duty to preside at the supper. But, instead of reprehending any one's neglect as specially responsible, the apostle deals with the hearts and consciences of all the saints and brings out its true meaning, object, and guard for the instruction of the entire church of God. To discern the body, to appreciate the unfathomable grace of our Lord in His death for our sins, is the true corrective for all that have faith in Him who deigns to be in their midst as thus gathered to His name. To introduce a human order however reverent in appearance, without divine warrant, for the purpose of shutting out the Corinthian excesses or any others, is more offensive to him that trembles at the word of the Lord than any abuse of His supper as it was instituted. Even under such circumstances as those of Corinth the apostle adds nothing, takes away nothing, corrects nothing of that institution; in which we are called to announce the death of the Lord until He shall have come.

275 With respect to the distribution of the Supper, the difficulties are imaginary. As the apostle says of the woman, nature also can teach us here. The Supper must be celebrated in a suitable way; this every Christian would feel. If you are not numerous, and you are placed in the same circumstances, all is easy. If there is a large assembly, it has not been formed in a moment; and there are always to be found in it persons who are well known and respected by brethren: those persons may break the bread. As to an essential difference as a right, there is none; but it is a duty towards God to celebrate, in a suitable way, an institution of Christ, so precious to the church. It is the flesh alone that would make use of the ordinances of the Lord to exalt itself above other brethren, and to arrogate some importance to itself; and the flesh is always bad.

The truth is that the breaking of bread is the action of the whole assembly of saints at which the Lord and none else presides, not even Paul or Peter. For the same one who declared himself not one whit behind the very chiefest of the apostles also confessed himself as less than the least of all saints. When it was a question of communicating the truth of God, he did so as an apostle and a prophet, as a teacher and a preacher. When it was a question of remembering the Lord he mingled with the rest. But it was the carnal desire for formalism that introduced the figment of ministerial administration in sub-apostolic days to the immeasurable loss of all concerned. What the Lord designed to bring the souls of His own in contact with Himself ("This do in remembrance of Me"), man thus perverts by setting up a medium between the soul of the saint and the One he remembers. Surely every child of God should resist such an innovation and all else that would hinder or mar the true character of the hallowed fellowship at the table of the Lord. W. J. Hocking.

In 1 Cor. 10:16 we learn something more of the details of the supper. The cup of blessing necessarily comes first in the enumeration, for it is written, Christ loved us before we loved Him. But in the next chapter (1 Cor. 11) we have the Lord's table in its original order, viz., the breaking of the bread first, and then the drinking of the wine next. It is extremely important and instructive to note that the table of the Lord is shown as having a place for all believers on a common standing, without any distinction or discrimination — no priest, no clergyman, or minister, or president — each privileged to partake of the elements separately. We have the lordship of Christ clearly stated no fewer than seven times in 1 Cor. 11:23-29, "I have received of the Lord," "that the Lord Jesus, "when he had given thanks," "He took the cup," "the Lord's death," "whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," "not discerning the Lord's body." "Christ is Son of his own house, whose house ye are"; and Lord over His own table, of course, also. If any man preside where Christ is, and where the Holy Ghost is in each believer, and amongst them all, the man daring to preside, by that action, displaces Christ, and goes far on the way to "quench the Spirit" by that act of presidency. For Christ has never said to any man, "Give thou," or, "Administer thou." But Scripture says, in His own words, "Take ye," "Eat ye," "Drink ye all of it," and no man has any authority to come between the Christian and His present Lord.