Robert Bruce and the Lord's Supper

 A chapter in The People's Theologian, a festschrift for Donald Macleod.

The contributors to this volume who had the privilege of studying under Donald Macleod have their own preferences concerning which of his classes in the Free Church of Scotland College meant most to them. Personally, the class I enjoyed the most was a set of lectures that were available only for a few years when he took students through the history of Protestant theology in Scotland and introduced us to several theologians and the best of their writings. One of the earliest of these theologians was Robert Bruce (1554–1631) and his classic work entitled The Mystery of the Lord’s Supper.

By any assessment Robert Bruce was a remarkable man. He possessed gifts of statesmanship – a combination of family privilege, suitable education and personal character – as was evident when he was chosen by the king, James VI, to supervise the government of Scotland during his absence in Denmark in 1589.(1) Bruce’s calling by the General Assembly to become minister of St. Giles in Edinburgh at a time of difficulty for the Scottish Reformed church reveals the confidence his ecclesiastical colleagues had in his abilities. His fame as a preacher was recognised by his contemporaries. Today, Bruce’s experience of uncommon encounters with God has made him a person of interest to theologians of the charismatic movement.(2) This exploration is encouraged by the knowledge that even George Gillespie regarded it as likely that Bruce was a prophet raised up by God to deliver his Word in a crucial moment of church history.(3) Bruce’s teachings about the person and work of Christ led T.F. Torrance to ask whether or not Bruce anticipated much of the incarnational theology championed by Torrance.(4) Yet the prominent reason for Bruce’s ongoing fame today is none of these reasons – instead it is his small book of sermons called The Mystery of the Lord’s Supper.

The sermons were preached in February and March of 1589, and printed in the following year. They were taken down by a hearer and published without any re-writing or improving by Bruce, although the publication was supervised by him. In his preface, addressed to James VI, Bruce indicated that the collection of sermons on the Lord’s Supper was his first venture into publishing and that the book appeared at the insistence of his Kirk and Session. The first editions were in Scots, but in 1614 the sermons on the Lord’s Supper were published in English under the title, The Mystery of the Lord’s Supper. Three years later, a new English edition also contained other sermons that had been published in Scots, this new publication having a rather pointless title, The Way to True Peace and Rest (a title that had no connection to the contents, and which was not chosen by Bruce). Those two English editions indicate that there was an interest in Bruce’s sermons in England as well as Scotland.

Subsequent editions of Bruce’s sermons appeared in 1843, 1901 and 1958. The 1843 edition was edited by William Cunningham of New College, Edinburgh, and the sermons were the Scots version (this edition also contained a life of Bruce by Robert Wodrow). The 1901 edition was edited by John Laidlaw, also of New College, and contained a new English translation of the sermons on the Lord’s Supper and a biography of Bruce by the editor. In 1958, Thomas F. Torrance, again of New College, published another new translation of the sermons on the Lord’s Supper in which he re-arranged some of the sentences in order to clarify his assessment of Bruce’s meaning – Torrance also changed the Bible version from the Geneva Bible of Bruce to either the Authorised or the Revised Versions.(5) The involvement of three prominent Scottish theologians in re-publishing Bruce’s work at different times indicates the importance of his work as a contribution to Scottish theology.

Inevitably Bruce’s treatment of the Lord’s Supper was made within his contemporary ecclesiastical situation. The Scottish Reformation had been established for about three decades when Bruce delivered his sermons. This state of affairs meant that Roman Catholicism was still a matter of public concern and as far as the Lord’s Supper was concerned Bruce had to give space to deal with transubstantiation, the view of the Roman church regarding the Lord’s Supper, and his criticisms duplicate those common among the previous generation of Reformers. Bruce also considered the role of the pastor during the Lord’s Supper and also the importance of self-examination before participating in the Supper, and in both these areas his thought merits careful consideration. In this chapter I want to focus on his teaching concerning what occurs at the Lord’s Supper, as participants listen to a sermon, watch what happens to the elements of bread and wine, and then eat and drink them.

The rites of the Supper

What is the connection between listening to a sermon and participating in the Lord’s Supper? In a service that includes the Lord’s Supper Bruce regarded the Supper as a seal of the covenant of grace and mercy. It was a seal because it served the same purpose as a common seal did; such a seal confirmed what was written in the sealed document. The Lord’s Supper sealed the contents of the Covenant. Bruce regarded it as a holy seal because its elements were changed from a common to a holy use. Yet, just as an ordinary seal had to be attached to a document, so the Supper had to be attached to the preached Word. Just as a document did not need a seal in order to be true, so the preached Word does not need the Sacrament in order to be effective. But just as a seal without a document did not confirm anything, so the Sacrament without the preached Word did not achieve any benefits.

Obviously there is a connection between what happens at an ordinary meal and at the Lord’s Supper in that the latter is also a meal, so it is helpful to observe the connection even if all that is intended is that an ordinary meal helps to illustrate the meaning of the Supper as a means of spiritual nourishment. Such an illustration helps us appreciate why Bruce regarded it as of great importance for believers to maintain in their thinking the distinction between the substance (Christ) and the fruits (such as growth in faith), even although the substance and the fruits cannot be separated. He argued from what occurs in physical absorption of food. A person has to eat food in order to experience the benefits of nourishment: eating the food is a picture of feeding on Christ the substance, and the benefits of nourishment (such as physical strength) illustrate the spiritual fruits that a believer receives from Christ. It would be absurd to expect a person to have nourishment without eating; so a believer cannot have the fruits without feeding on Christ. ‘Think of how impossible it is to be fed with food that never comes into your mouth, or to regain your health by medicine that is never applied or procured out of the apothecary’s shop. It is just as impossible for you to be fed by the Body of Christ, or to get your health from the Blood of Christ, unless first of all you eat His Body and drink His Blood.’(7)

Why do the elements of the bread and the wine have this power? Bruce’s answer is that they have it because of the institution of Christ.(8) Nevertheless, although given by Christ, the power is temporary, lasting only as long as the Supper lasts. The repetition of the words that Christ used by the officiating minister are the beginning of the time when the elements have this special power.

During the Supper, various rites are required and Bruce mentions three more in addition to the words of institution. First, the breaking of the bread is essential because it depicts not the breaking of the physical body of Jesus but the fact that ‘it was broken in pain, in anguish and distress of heart, under the weight of the indignation and wrath of God, which He sustained in bearing our sins.’ Second, the pouring out of the wine is essential because it signifies ‘that His Blood was severed from His flesh’ and it ‘tells you that He died for you, that His Blood was shed for you.’ Third, the giving and the taking of the elements are essential rites at the Supper.

These rites are necessary for the spiritual benefit of believers. They have to be observed by those participating and applied personally. For Bruce, ‘every sign and ceremony has its own spiritual signification, and there is no ceremony in this whole action lacking its own spiritual signification.’ Every physical activity, whether by the minister in setting apart the elements or in handling them, or by the participant in receiving them, has its spiritual equivalent. As the minister fulfils his role, ‘Christ is busy doing all these things spiritually to your soul.’ When the believer’s mouth takes the bread and the wine, ‘the mouth of your soul takes the Body and Blood of Christ, and that by faith.’(9)

The conjunction of the elements and what they signify

Bruce so far has hinted that his understanding of what takes place at the Supper is more Calvinian than Zwinglian. As he develops his explanation of what takes place at the Supper his agreement with Calvinist distinctions becomes even more clear.

Bruce admitted that the conjunction between the bread and the Body of Christ and the wine and the Blood of Christ was difficult to understand. He acknowledged that it was easier to point out what he did not mean that it was to say what he did mean. An observer can clearly see that the signs (bread and wine in the Supper) and the thing signified (Christ) are not conjoined locally (not in the one place), corporally (they don’t touch one another) or visibly (only bread and wine is seen). In addition, the conjunction must correspond and agree ‘with the nature of the Sacrament’. If the nature of the Sacrament does allow a conjunction, one still has to discover how far the conjunction can go.

For Bruce, the Sacraments were mysteries, and this nature of mystery required that the conjunction be ‘a mystical, secret and spiritual’ one. In order to understand the ‘mysterious’ nature of the Sacraments, one needs heavenly enlightenment by the Holy Spirit. ‘Nothing that is taught in the Word and Sacraments will ever do you good or lift up your soul to heaven, unless the Spirit of God enlightens your mind, and makes you find in your soul the thing that you hear in the Word.’(10)

Bruce’s use of the term ‘mystery’ is taken from Ephesians 5:32 where Paul calls the union between Christ and his people ‘a great mystery’, and if the whole is a mystery, it is appropriate to call a part (the union between Jesus and his people at the Lord’s Supper) a mystery as well. Of course, the term ‘mystery’ can only be used if the participants in the Supper are engaged in more than mere remembering of Jesus and are also participating in real communion with him. Bruce’s understanding here reflects the Scots Confession’s affirmation: ‘And so we utterly damn the vanity of those that affirm Sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs…; and also, that in the Supper, rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us, that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls.’ This criticism indicates Bruce’s rejection of a Zwinglian interpretation of the Supper and his agreement with Calvin.

The conjunction means that in every Sacrament, there are two features that have a ‘relative and mutual respect to one another’. Concerning the relative feature, Bruce used the connection between the Word preached and the thing signified in the Sacrament to illustrate the connection between the sign and the thing signified. The listener can picture in his mind what is said in the sermon (for example, a reference to the king), even if he cannot understand how the connection is made because it is not a visible connection. Similarly, a partaker should realise that the Sacrament is a visible Word that conveys the thing signified to the mind in a similar manner to how the spoken Word conveyed the thing signified to the mind. Therefore when the person observes the element of bread, its signification will come into his mind and he will think of the body of Christ. This can happen because there is an analogy between the sign and the thing signified. Bread nourishes the physical body, Christ nourishes ‘both body and soul to life everlasting’.

The second feature in the conjunction ‘consists in a continual and mutual concurring of the one with the other, in such a way that the sign and the thing signified are offered both together, received together at the same time, and in the same action, the one outwardly, the other inwardly; if you have a mouth in your soul, which is faith, to receive it.’(11) A believer has two mouths, as it were: his physical mouth eats the bread and drinks the wine; the mouth of his soul feeds on Christ by faith.

Objections to this conjunction

Bruce was aware of objections to his teaching, at that time from Roman Catholic sources.(12) One objection was to his emphasis that the only perception of Christ in the Supper is a spiritual one. His opponents argued that his teaching made the Supper superfluous because Christ could be received by faith when the Word was preached. Since he could be received then, what further need was there for the Supper? Bruce admitted that believers received nothing different in the Sacrament than what they received from the preached Word. It is the case that even if a believer ascends to heaven he cannot receive a greater Christ than what he receives in the Word. Yet Bruce did not allow that this reality meant that the Supper was unnecessary. When a believer takes part spiritually in the Supper he obtains a better hold on Christ and receives more of Christ. Bruce compares the Christ received in preaching as being like what a person can hold between his finger and his thumb whereas the Christ he receives in the Supper (which would have been preceded by preaching) is like what a person can hold in his whole hand.(13)

Bruce also noted another weakness in the argument that since Christ was received in the Word, what need was there to partake of him additionally in the Supper? That argument would prove that a person only needed to receive Christ once and there would be no need to have further receptions of Christ. But a believer grows each time he takes part in the Supper. Each time he comes, his faith is augmented, he increases in understanding, in knowledge, in capability of receiving, and in feeling,(14) since it is the same Christ that is given on subsequent occasions.

A second objection concerned the judgement that comes on an unbeliever who takes part in the Supper. It was claimed that since an unbeliever could not receive Christ in a spiritual manner, he could not be capable of eating and drinking unworthily, and therefore would not be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ. Bruce responds that the failure of such to eat and drink by faith was an expression of unworthy partaking and made them guilty. He illustrates his response by noting that an earthly prince would be off ended if a subject trampled on his seal just as if he had trampled on him in person. Therefore, although the wicked cannot eat in a spiritual way, they can be guilty of treating Christ in an unworthy manner. Bruce appeals for support to the passages in Hebrews 6:6 and 10:29 where apostates are condemned for despising Christ.

A third objection was that since the thing signified (body and blood of Christ) is always attached to the sign, then evil persons must eat Christ when they eat the bread and drink the wine. Bruce does not deny that Christ is present when the elements are taken but notes that it is possible for him not to be received. Christ is also present when the Word is preached, indeed is offered to all who hear, yet all who hear do not take him. Similarly, he is offered truly in the bread and wine to all who partake, but the mere partaking in a physical way does not indicate that a person has also eaten in a spiritual way. If they fail to benefit spiritually, the fault is theirs and not God’s because he is not bound to give what they refuse to take. Nevertheless, if a person does receive Christ in a spiritual way, the reason is because of God’s grace.(15)

The means that bring about this conjunction

Bruce regarded a true appreciation of the Lord’s Supper as evidence of great theological attainment. This appreciation included the application of Christ to the soul, and if a person possessed it, he was a ‘great theologian’. It is not enough to know about Christ, there has to be personal experience of him. ‘For the right application of Christ to the sick soul, to the wounded conscience, and the diseased heart, is the fountain of all our felicity, and the well-spring of all our joy.’(16)

Possession of Christ is possession of spiritual life. The outworking of spiritual life in the soul is parallel or similar to the outworking of physical life in the body, although the influences of spiritual life are far greater than those of physical life. In order for a person to have this conjunction, two activities must take place. First, God must work through the Holy Spirit and, second, we must have faith.(17)

How can a believer on earth receive the body of Christ since the body of Jesus is in heaven? Obviously there is a great distance between the believer on earth and Jesus in heaven. It is important for a believer to realise that this distance does not deprive him of the title he has to Christ. ‘The distance of place does not hurt my title or my right. If any of you [in Edinburgh] has a piece of land lying in the farthest part of Orkney, if you have a good title to it, the distance of place cannot hurt it.’(18) A believer does not get Christ in the Supper because he ascends to heaven and plucks Christ from there. Instead, he gets Christ because he already possesses a permanent title to him; the right to the title was given in the Word, and in the Supper the believer receives confirmation of his entitlement. ‘Therefore distance of place does not hurt, and nearness of place does not help, the certainty of my title.’ Even if Jesus were to descend from heaven and touch a person, this touch would be of no benefit if the recipient had no title to Christ.

The contact that a believer has with Christ is not one between his body and Christ’s body. Instead, it is contact between his soul and Christ’s body. The cord that stretches between Christ in heaven and the soul of the believer on earth is the Holy Spirit. Just as the sun in the sky reaches us by its beams, so Christ in heaven reaches the believer by his Spirit. This contact by the Spirit on Christ’s part is invisible. Therefore we are not to think that we can sense how it works, although we can sense the effects of it. Instead we are to remember that the Spirit, because he is divine, is infinite and ‘it is as easy for the Spirit to join Christ and us, no matter how distant we may be, as it is for our soul to link our head and the feet of our body, though they be separated from one another’. The Spirit is a ladder that conjoins us to Christ (just as Jacob’s ladder reached from the ground to heaven).(19)

Faith, for Bruce, was not merely an intellectual persuasion, but included personal assurance of salvation. This assurance was the normal outcome of self-examination and prepared a person for participating at the Lord’s Supper. It was what distinguished the faith of true Christians from the general faith of the Roman Catholics and from various sects.(20) It was also an assurance that could increase as long as the believer ensured that he maintained a good conscience towards God.

Yet Bruce was aware that some believers were possessed by doubts, with some of these periods of doubt being prolonged and severe. He recognises the hand of God in these times and gives two reasons for this divine permission. First, God lets some of his people taste the bitterness of sin in order to humble them and see how ugly sin is. Second, he allows such experiences in order for them to appreciate in a measure what Christ experienced in Gethsemane and realise how much they are indebted to him.

For Bruce, the opposite of faith was not doubt but despair. It was possible for faith and doubt to exist in the one heart, but it was impossible for faith and despair to co-exist. Despair means without hope, and faith cannot exist where there is no hope.

Doubt arises when a person does not immediately repent of sin. Within each believer, there remains much indwelling sin which is never idle. Each sin will banish light and hurt the conscience. When the conscience is hurt, the believer’s light is dimmed and doubt arises. In fact, doubt would be much greater if God did not usually lead his people to repentance when they sinned. The way to deal with doubt was by focusing on the mercy of God. A small degree of faith was sufficient to allow participation in the Lord’s Supper.(21)

Concluding reflections

Four comments can be made about Bruce’s treatment of the Lord’s Supper.

First, given the importance of participation for a true believer and the necessity of counter-acting at that time the false practices of the Roman church, it is surprising that Bruce did not suggest more frequent occasions of the Lord’s Supper. The aim at that time in Scotland was for the Supper to be held quarterly in cities, although many churches did not achieve this target. Yet since the Supper is such an effective means of conveying spiritual blessing from Christ, one would assume that the logical consequence for Bruce would be more numerous occurrences of the Supper. Frequent observance would also have helped develop a spiritual bond between members of his congregation. A third argument for more frequent commemorations is that a good way to remove superstitious notions connected to the Supper is more regular practising of the scriptural way. Yet Bruce does not suggest any adjustments to the ecclesiastical practice of the time concerning frequency.

Second, we can learn from Bruce of the importance of understanding Christology as we prepare for, preach about and participate in the Lord’s Supper. Whatever else may be said about Bruce’s view, it is clear that Christ is central. Christians anticipate that they are going to meet with the Lord Jesus at the Supper. For many of them today, their focus is on themselves as they intend to remember him, and their concern, rightly, is to prepare themselves for the occasion. Yet few seem to give thought to what such a meeting involves for the deity of Jesus and for his risen and glorified humanity – as God he possesses omnipresence, as risen and glorified man he is confined to one place at a time, so in what way(s) does he meet with his followers as they remember him? Nor do they consider the role performed by the Holy Spirit in bringing together the ascended Lord and his people as they meet around his table? Bruce’s work attempts to answer such questions. In doing so, we have seen that Bruce continued the teaching of Calvin concerning the spiritual presence of Christ at the Lord’s Supper, teaching that was expressed in the Scots Confession. At the Supper, real communion takes place between Jesus (as divine and human) and his people; it is achieved by the work of the Holy Spirit, although the Saviour’s body does not leave heaven and the believer’s body does not leave earth. Yet the distance between them is not a barrier and believers do not merely gather to think about an absent Lord. Instead they come together to meet with him and receive from him.

Third, Bruce’s work challenges us regarding the seriousness of taking part in a communion service. Such participation involves preparation of heart by self-examination before the Supper, which by definition requires a meaningful searching of one’s heart. A serious participation also requires careful attention to what occurs during the Supper. The minister, according to Bruce, has to perform certain actions which have symbolic force and which will help observant participants as they sit at the Table. The participants had to observe the actual breaking of the bread and the pouring of the wine by the minister because they illustrated what had happened to Jesus when he died. It is the case that many expositors do not accept that these actions have any symbolic value and are not essential to a Biblically authentic ordinance. Today it is common for bread to be cut and wine to be poured into cups before the service begins and outside the location where the service takes place. Nevertheless actions at the Supper convey a message; for example, if the minister behaves in a casual manner, and is imitated by his congregation, he will contribute to an irreverent service; or if participants ignore the sharing of the elements and merely focus on their own participation, they can give the impression that fellowship is not occurring at the horizontal level and that brotherly love is unimportant.

Fourth, Bruce’s explanation stresses the reality that the Lord’s Supper has aspects beyond human explanation. His use of the term ‘mystery’ may be questionable, given that in the New Testament it usually refers to truths that were revealed by God to his apostles and prophets. Nevertheless, in the Lord’s Supper we are engaging in communion with a Saviour whom we cannot see, who is present with his people in the fullness of his Person, who is united to them by the Holy Spirit, who conveys to them spiritual blessings through one of his chosen means of grace, who uses it as part of the process of developing his own image within their hearts, and who through it draws them onwards in their journey towards heaven. We can close this examination of Bruce’s view of the Lord’s Supper by borrowing J. I. Packer’s description of mystery (given in another context): mystery ‘means a reality distinct from us that in our very apprehending of it remains unfathomable to us: a reality which we acknowledge as actual without knowing how it is possible, and which we therefore describe as incomprehensible.’(22) I suspect Bruce would have agreed with such a description of what occurs at the Lord’s Supper.

References

(1) For biographical details, see D. C. McNicol (1907), Master Robert Bruce, Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 78ff.

(2) Jack Deere (1996), Surprised by the Voice of God, Kingsway, 75-76.

(3) George Gillespie (1649), ‘A Treatise of Miscellany Questions,’ in The Works of George Gillespie, Still Water Revival Books (1991 rpt), Vol. 2, 29.

(4) Thomas F. Torrance (1996), Scottish Theology, T. and T. Clark, 55-58.

(5) Robert Bruce (1958), The Mystery of the Lord’s Supper (translated and edited by Thomas F. Torrance), James Clarke & Co. Quotations in this chapter are taken from this Torrance edition.

(6) Torrance, 113. Note the words of the Scots Confession: ‘Moreover, if the sacraments are to be rightly used it is essential that the end and purpose of their institution should be understood, not only by the minister but also by the recipients. For if the recipient does not understand what is being done, the sacrament is not being rightly used, as is seen in the case of the Old Testament sacrifices.’

(7) Torrance, 75.

(8) Torrance, 77ff.

(9) Torrance, 78-79.

(10) Torrance, 82. Bruce’s comments here merely reflect what is stated in the Scots Confession regarding human inability to understand what was occurring at the Lord’s Supper (‘yet we affirm that the faithful in the right use of the Lord’s Table have such conjunction with Christ Jesus, as the natural man cannot comprehend’).

(11) Torrance, 52.

(12) Subsequent Roman Catholic criticism appeared in 1593, when a Roman Catholic priest, William Reynolde, published a volume partly in reply to Bruce’s book called A Treatise Conteyning the True Catholike and Apostolike Faith of the Holy Sacrifi ce and Sacrament Ordeyned by Chrift at his laft Supper: Vvith a declaration of the Berengarian herefi e renewed in our age: and an Anfwere to certain Sermons made by M. Robert Bruce Minifter of Edinburgh concerning the matter. Bruce was defended and Reynolde criticised in an appendix to a volume written in 1602 by Alexander Hume, Maister of the high Schoole of Edinburgh, called Of the True and Catholik meaning of our Sauiour his words, this is my bodie, in the inftitution of his lafte Supper through the ages of the Church from Chrift to our owne dayis.

(13) Torrance, 84-85.

(14) Torrance, 85-86.

(15) Torrance, 88-89.

(16) Torrance, 90.

(17) Torrance, 91.

(18) Torrance, 92. The Scots Confession avers: ‘And yet, notwithstanding the far distance of place, which is between his body now glorified in the heaven, and us now mortal in this earth, yet we most assuredly believe, that the bread which we break is the communion of Christ’s body, and the cup which we bless is the communion of his blood.’

(19) Torrance, 93-95. Bruce repeats the necessity of a title and the work of the Spirit in pages 101-106. He uses the incident of the woman with the issue of blood who was healed by Jesus. She was not healed because she touched him physically but because of her faith. The hand that touched the hem depicted the hand of her soul touching Christ by faith. Note also the emphasis of the Scots Confession regarding the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit: ‘but this union and communion which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus in the right use of the sacraments, is wrought by operation of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us to feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus, which was once broken and shed for us, which now is in the heaven, and appeared in the presence of his Father for us.’

(20) Torrance, 180-81.

(21) ‘You see in what points every one of you ought to be prepared: you must be endowed with this love, and with faith, and if you have these in any small degree, go forward boldly to hear the Word, and to receive the Sacrament. This is the preparation that we allow’ (Torrance, 198).

(22) J. I. Packer, ‘What Did the Cross Achieve?’ in J. I. Packer and Mark Dever (2007), In My Place Condemned He Stood, Crossway, 57.