Although we should all be encouraging each other in the life of holiness, sometimes the Lord’s people are hindered and weakened by the sins and questionable behaviour of others. If things get very serious, we need to “mark and avoid” the people responsible, but plenty of incidents and activities do not justify this level of response. In his pastoral capacity James Durham was aware of believers who were so bothered by the problematic things in the lives of their fellow church members that they wondered whether it was even right to sit together with them at the Lord’s supper? Seeing that, at least in their perception, those individuals did not meet the criteria for participating in this ordinance, these believers were concerned that it would spoil or “pollute” the Lord’s supper — so much so, that perhaps they themselves should avoid taking communion with them. In the following updated extract, James Durham explains from multiple angles why this is the wrong conclusion. We can be too fastidious. (Note that in his discussion, the term “scandalous” does not mean “outrageous, shockingly immoral” but rather has the slightly technical sense of “causing some form of spiritual harm to other people, and/or bringing reproach on the name of Christ.”)

Does admitting scandalous persons to the Lord’s supper pollute the communion? Is it sinful to receive the Lord’s supper alongside such persons, or, are fellow communicants defiled by doing so? Let us, for answer, consider “pollution” distinctly, with reference to four different things.

The Lord’s supper itself

Firstly, there are two possible ways in which the sacraments could be polluted. The first is intrinsic, relating to the essence of the sacrament. By corrupting the institution of Christ, the sacrament could be turned into no sacrament (as it is in the Roman mass), or made into something hurtful (as when significant ceremonies, sinfully devised by men, are mixed and added, besides and contrary to Christ’s institution). The first everts the nature of the sacrament, so that it is henceforth not a sacrament at all any more. The second poisons it, so that it is impossible to receive the sacrament without actively partaking of that sin.

Another way of polluting the sacrament is extrinsic, relating to the circumstances, rather than the essence — how we make use of it, or when it is applied beyond Christ’s warrant (such as when it is administered to someone who Christ does not permit). In that case it is not a sacrament to that person, yet it remains a sacrament in itself. This is pollution in the sense of making the sacrament “profane,” or common, to us.

For example, when the word of promise is applied generally in a congregation, without distinguishing, in application, between “the precious and the vile,” this is a profaning of the Word (for the word of promise should not be made common any more than the sacrament) (see Ezekiel 22:26). Yet, even in that case, the Word does not cease to be God’s Word, although it is misused in this way.

As a pearl cast before a sow is puddled and abused, yet it still remains a pearl, so it is here in the Word and sacraments; they are misused when misapplied, yet they are still the ordinances of God. The temple was said to be profaned when it was made more common in its use than was allowed, yet it was still the temple of the Lord.

Admitting scandalous persons to the sacraments may in this sense be called polluting the sacraments, but the sacraments essentially in themselves are not affected.

Those who participate in the Lord’s supper

Secondly, we may consider “pollution” with reference to the persons who are admitted to the sacraments.

The sacraments may be polluted, (1) by grossly scandalous persons; (2) by hypocrites; (3) by believers not exercising their graces.

The sacrament is polluted both by and to all these, because, just as “to the pure all (lawful) things are pure,” so to the unclean and unbelieving, “nothing is pure, because their mind and conscience are defiled” (Titus 1:15). Thus their praying, sacrificing, hearing, ploughing, etc., is all unclean.

The same principle applies to believers. Although believers are in a good and clean state, yet they may be in an evil and unholy frame, and then it may be said that in some sense they pollute the Lord’s supper to themselves.

Those who are responsible for admitting people to the Lord’s supper

Thirdly, the church office-bearers are the ones who have the responsibility of admitting people to partake in the Lord’s supper. Although the sacrament is not profaned essentially, yet office-bearers may sin, and be guilty of profaning it, by opening the door wider than Christ has allowed, and not keeping the right boundaries. As ministers may sin in applying the promises and consolations of the covenant too widely, so they may sin in applying its seals (i.e., the sacraments) too widely.

Yet the church office-bearers would not be sinning in situations like the following.

1. When a scandal has not been made known to them. Office-bearers are not required to look on people as scandalous till their scandal has been exposed, which may mean that people who are in fact scandalous are admitted to the Lord’s table legitimately .

2. When scandals cannot be confirmed as such in a church court (though possibly they be true in themselves). Such persons may be admitted, even against the inclination and affection of the office-bearers, yet not against their conscience. It is a high censure in Christ’s house to refuse admittance to the Lord’s table, and His servants the office-bearers are not to act arbitrarily (for that would bring confusion with it) but by the rules they have been given, which includes, “not to receive an accusation, but under two or three witnesses.”

3. When by some circumstances it is not edifying, but rather hurtful, to the church, or to the persons concerned, to debar them from the Lord’s supper.

Those who sit at the Lord’s supper

Let us consider, finally, if this ordinance is polluted to those receive the Lord’s supper alongside those who are scandalous.

Suppose that some are sinfully admitted to the Lord’s supper by the office-bearers of the church. I say that it is not a pollution or sin to others to partake alongside them. The sacrament, as Christ’s ordinance, may be blessed notwithstanding to the non-scandalous communicants, just as when the Word is unwarrantably applied such a way that pearls are cast before swine, any tender souls who are present may warrantably take that misused word as God’s Word, and it may prove useful to them.

To confirm this truth, I offer the following reasons.

The first is, the Word and sacraments are of one nature, and are polluted, or made use of, in one and the same way. The only difference between them is that the one (the Word) is usually wronged doctrinally, the other (the sacraments) disciplinarily.

Secondly, when someone is admitted to the Lord’s supper unwarrantably, the sin of this does not belong to the communicants but to the minister. Therefore, it cannot wrong them, any more than, for example, lack of preparation in others who come.

Thirdly, the sin of someone else cannot loosen me from my obligation in a duty. Now, it is the duty of every one to examine themselves, and, equally, being prepared by suitable self-examination, to eat (1 Cor. 11:28). Now though the command requiring self-examination does not warrant office-bearers not to examine, yet it does warrant individual communicants to endeavour rightly to go about that duty themselves, and not to be much anxious what others do, as if other people’s behaviour was the ground of our approaching to the Lord’s table.

Fourthly, as it is notwithstanding a sacrament, so to neglect it is to neglect a sacrament.

Fifthly, if scandalous communicants did corrupt it to others, then a corrupt minister could never administer a sacrament. This would contradict the Lord’s way, for He has sometimes appointed such to dispense His mysteries both in the Old and New Testaments. If the corruption of the minister does not pollute the ordinance, much less will the scandal of any others.

Seventhly, it would be a great and inextricable snare to people’s consciences, if the fruit of our communicating depended not only on our own preparing of ourselves, but also on the ministers and our fellow communicants. If the fact that they were not prepared, or inadequately prepared, brought guilt on us, it would be impossible that we could ever receive the sacrament with a clear conscience.

How so?

Because (1) it is hard to think but that, when a communion is celebrated, there will be one or more who should not be admitted, and the admission of even one or two profanes the ordinance. In fact, if their defilement was ours, then, even if we thought them to be scandalous, we could not in faith communicate with them, lest the ordinance be defiled by us. But this cannot be.

(2) The presence of any hypocrite would defile it to us, for his hypocrisy would defile it to him, and he has no right before God to come. It would make no difference if we did not know that he was a hypocrite. For something is still sin when we don’t know it, and in any case, it is his hypocrisy, not our knowing his sin, that defiles the sacrament. Otherwise, the same sacrament might be God’s ordinance, participated warrantably by someone who did not know, and not by someone else, who did know! Which would be hard to explain.

(3) If even other believers themselves were spiritually out of sorts, it would pollute this ordinance to us, and incapacitate us to receive it, for we should keep as great a distance from the sins of believers as from the sins of others.

(4) For that matter, you could not communicate with yourself! You have corruption. You know your corruption, as well as you can know anyone else’s. So, it would pollute the ordinance to yourself, and bring guilt with it. Therefore, if someone else’s sin that you know about is capable of polluting the ordinance, your own sin would pollute it much more.

You couldn’t argue that your corruption matters less because it is weakened by grace, because it is still corruption, and certainly some corruption in ourselves will weigh more than complete corruption in someone else, especially considering that our own sin necessarily pollutes all our holy things.

Nor could you argue that your corruption matters less because it’s impossible to be freed from it while in this life. That’s because, in this life, a mixture of good and bad in the visible church (hence at the Lord’s supper), is as certain as a mixture of grace and corruption in a believer. If our own corruption, which involves us in sin in the manner of our doing duties, does not loosen us from a commanded duty, much less does sin in others. We are no less prohibited to have communion with sin and corruption in ourselves than in others, and also we are commanded as effectually to purge our own heart as the church.

FURTHER READING

AUTHOR MENU