The Lord's Supper Versus the Mass
“As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” — 1 Cor. 11: 26.
THE text tells us the object of the Lord’s Supper is to proclaim the death of Christ. In contrast with this scriptural meaning is the Roman Catholic Mass, and the purpose of this sermon is to show the difference between the two, and how the Mass has virtually destroyed the Lord’s Supper as instituted by Jesus Christ.
I. In THE LorpD’s SUPPER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, THE BREAD AND WINE REPRESENT THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST. In the Mass the bread and the wine, each and every part of it becomes, by the consecration of the priest, the real ‘‘ body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.” Any part of the wafer is the whole of Christ. Every drop of the wine is the whole of Christ. The part equals the whole, and we have the spectacle of the real Christ, human and Divine, multiplied into more than 10,000 Christs, in the shape of around wafer, or a drop of wine! All of this is drawn from the passage, “This is my body.” They tell us it means what it says, and then go on to make it mean more than it says. The wafer is not the body only, but the “body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ,” The wine is not the blood only, but the “blood, body, soul and divinity of Christ;”’ so that, while they claim to interpret the words literally, they add to them as much as they please. The Catechism of the Council of Trent has these words: “Whosoever shall deny that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there are truly, really and substantially contained the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and, consequentiy, Christ entirely, let him be accursed.” ‘There are several things which make this interpretation untenable and absurd. 1. Jesus had not died, when he established the Lord’s Supper. When he took the bread in his hand and blessed it, and then the cup, his body had not yet been broken on the cross, nor his blood shed. Shall we say that the bread which Jesus held in his hand was the “body, blood, soul and divinity” of the Christ that held it? that the elements which typified his broken body was the body itself, while the living body held these elements in its hand? Shall we say that the wine in the cup, which he blessed and gave to his disciples, was literally the blood that was then coursing through his veins? Was he breaking his own body, and pouring his own blood, by means of his own hands, and handing them to his disciples? Nothing is more absurd.
2. The only word in the Aramaic language — the language Jesus spoke in conversation — that means “to represent” is the word here used. In Aramaic the verb ‘‘to be” was frequently used in the sense of “to represent;” so that, when he said, “This is my body,” he said, “This represents my body,” according to the custom of the language he spoke.
8. Such is the Biblical sense of the word. Go back to Genesis 41: 26: “The seven good kine are seven years.” Will any one say that the seven good cattle which Joseph saw were literally seven years of 365 days, which had not yet come? All admit that the seven good cattle simply represented seven years.
Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar: ‘‘ Thou art this head of gold.” Dan. 2: 38. Did Daniel mean to say that the king, standing before him, was really gold — that he was flesh and bones and hair in appearance, but really gold? All admit that he meant to say, ‘Thou art represented by the head of gold in the image.”
In Revelation 1: 20 are the words: “The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.” Has a commentator ever risen to claim that the seven stars of the vision were really seven angels of the churches, and that the seven candlesticks, with their prongs and oil, were literally seven churches?
“They drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ.” 1 Cor. 10: 4. That rock represented Christ. Jesus said, “[ am the bread of life.” Now to follow the Roman literalism, we must declare that Jesus, who said this, was, in flesh and bone and muscle and nerve and hair, literally bread — that he was a walking loafin the shape of a man — that his body deceived by its appearance; it had the feeling and flesh of a man, but was really bread!
In Luke 27: 20 “This cup is the New Testament in my blood.” Now to interpret that literally, we must say that the cup which Jesus held was of parchment, as then, or paper, as now, because wills or testaments were then written on parchment, now upon paper. Why not claim that the cup is the New Testament, rather than the “body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ?” There would be less blasphemy in that. The New Testament would, at Jeast, not be so lowered in the estimation of the people, because it, though full of living truth, is a dead, lifeless thing. The fact is, the cup itself here cannot be taken literally. ‘As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup.” Did he mean to say that we should drink the literal cup, made of clay, or tin, or silver? Did he not rather mean to say that the cup represents what is in it? So that the “seven stars” represent the angels of the churches; the “seven candiesticks”’ represent the churches; the “rock” represented Christ; Jesus represented the “bread of life,’ and the “‘cup” represents the testament of his blood, and the blood itself.
There is one passage greatly relied upon by some to.establish this doctrine of transubstantiation — John 6: 51-57: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and Iin him.” There is absolutely no reference to the Lord’s Supper in these words. Jesus had not yet instituted the Lord’s Supper, and, if he had referred to it, no one could have understood him, And the words were spoken to the unbelieving Jews, whom Christ was striving to induce to repent and believe
OO on him, not seeking to instruct them as to the nature of a certain ordinance.
He declares that his words have a spiritual reference: ‘“The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6: 63. That is, you are not to accept what I say about eating my flesh and drinking my blood as literally eating flesh and drinking blood, but give them a spiritual meaning. And you will notice that in the 47th verse he tells us what he means by eating and drinking the flesh and blood: ‘“He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.’ The spiritual meaning of all this is that you appropriate me, the Bread of Life, by believing on me as’the Son of God and Saviour of sinners.
If these words refer to the Lord’s Supper at all, they completely destroy two dogmas of the Papacy. This church teaches that men are saved through baptism. Christ said here, ‘‘ Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” That is, if he is talking about the Lord’s Supper, “Except ye partake of this ordinance, ye cannot be saved.” The Romanists, on the contrary, do not contend that a man is lost, because he will not partake of the Mass. And, further, Jesus says, “Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” So that eternal life, if these words refer to the Eucharist, is based upon our partaking of it; and, if any man once eats the bread, which is the body, and drinks the wine, which is the blood of Christ, he has eternal life. The Papacy has long ago consigned Luther and other heretics to perdition. They have done wrong on this interpretation, because Luther and many other heretics certainly did partake of the Eucharist, and Luther even believed in transubstantiation until the day of his death.
We are told, again, that we cannot be certain we are saved, but these words tell us, that, if we eat the flesh and drink the blood, we have eternal life — not will have it in the future, but, we have it now; and such, really, is the teaching of the Bible. He that believeth on the Son, and by believing on the Son spiritually eats his flesh and drinks his blood, appropriates to himself that which gives life. “He that believeth on the Son hath (already) everlasting life.”
The first appearance of this doctrine of transubstantiation was in the beginning of the 8th century. Not until 700 years after Christ do we find the least semblance of belief in the real presence in the wafer and wine. In 1416 the Council of Constance dignified it into a dogma. Justin Martyr,in 140 A. D., describes the Lord’s Supper, and we see from his description that it was the simple thing that Jesus made it, breaking the bread, pouring the wine, and distributing it to the people. The only difference was in ‘‘ the kiss of peace” which preceded the ordinance.
St. Cyril’s description of it, in 347, shows the beginnings of corruption. The elements, it seems, were supposed to have some mystic power, so that they were applied to the eyes, ears, nose and other parts of the body.
Now, if the priest has not power to change the wafer into the whole of the Divine Christ, our Roman Catholic friends are idolators, because they bow before this host and worship it. If, on the other hand, the priest has power to change the wafer into the real Christ, our Roman Catholic friends, when they celebrate the Mass, eat their God and Saviour.
In the Missal, used every day by the Catholics, page 43, is this prayer: ‘‘ May thy body, O Lord, which I have received, and thy blood, which I have drunk, cleave to my bowels; and grant that no stain of sin may remain in me, who have been fed with this pure and holy sacrament.”
The wafer, even after it has been turned into a God, is not beyond the power of corruption. It may corrupt, and even breed worms, so that, in the summer time, the wafer is consecrated once a week, to avoid this corruption, though, in the winter, only twice a month. And yet, even after it has corrupted, breeding worms, the claim is that it is still the literal ‘body, blood, soul and Divinity of Christ,” and must be eaten.
We find in one of the Missals some directions about defects in administering the Mass. We are told that, “if, in winter, the blood be frozen in the cup, put warm cloths about the cup, and if that will not do, let it. be put into boiling water, near the altar, till it be melted, taking care it does not get into the cup.” “What a spectacle!” as Mr. Van Dyke exclaims, “A God frozen and warmed with bandages, or boiling water!”
Again, “If any of the blood of Christ fall upon the ground by negligence, it must be licked up with the tongue, the place be sufficiently scraped, and the scrapings burned; but the ashes must be buried in holy grounds.”. .. “If, after consecration, a gnat, or spider, or any such thing fall into the chalice, let the priest swallow it with the blood, if he can; but, if he fear danger, and have a loathing, let him take it out, and wash it in the wine, and when mass is ended, burnit, and’cast it and the washings into holy ground.”
God said of Christ that his Holy One should not see corruption, Acts 2: 27,
II. In THE LoRpD’s SUPPER THERE IS A SIMPLE MEMORIAL OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST; in the Mass it is claimed that there is “a true propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead.” Christ’s “body, blood, soul and divinity” is offered up every time the Mass is celebrated, just as it was offered up on the cross. It is called in the Rituals the “Sacrifice of the Cross.” And the object of having the Mass is, we are plainly told, “to continue the sacrifice of Christ in his church.”
To one clause of the Catechism, on page 46, we desire to call the attention of every devout Roman Catholic. It is a concession to the common sense and scriptural knowledge of the age. After asserting several times that the wafer and the wine are the literal “body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ,” and that the Mass is a real sacrifice for the sin of the living and the dead, we are told that “in the Mass there is no real shedding of blood nor death, because Christ can die no more; but the sacrifice of the Mass, through the separate consecration of the bread and the wine, represents his death on the cross.” We call upon all good Catholics to believe that statement, and reject all the rest in the Catechism which contradicts it. The broken bread and poured wine represent the broken. body and spilt blood of Christ, and that is the whole of it. The dogma that Christ is continually offered in the Mass flatly contradicts the following Scripture: “For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens. Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once when he offered up himself” (Heb. 7: 26-27).
Notice the expression, “who needeth not dailv” (the Mass is celebrated daily), “for this he did once,” implying that it is to be done no more.
Again: “Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9: 25-28).
Not offering himself often: then he must have been offered continually, as in the mass; ‘ but now once in the end of the age” has the sacrifice been made.
Several chapters in this Book of Hebrews, one would think, have for their purpose the refuting of this error of the continual sacrifice of Christ. é
“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9: 27, 28).
One death for the body: one offering of Christ! And “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL” (Heb. 10: 10).
And in this 12th verse: “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.” “One sacrifice for sins forever” certainly precludes any other sacrifice of Christ, bloody or bloodless.
The same thought is repeated in the 14th verse: “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” Even for the purposes of sanctification, only the one offering on Calvary is needed.
Again in verse 18: ‘‘ Now where remission of these is there is no more offering for sin.” Through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross our sins are forgiven, and God tells us he will remember them no more forever. In these verses it is plainly taught that Christ should be offered but once, and that the sacrifice of the cross should not continue.
Ill. In tHE Lorv’s SUPPER BOTH BREAD AND WINE WERE GIVEN TO THE COMMUNICANTS: in the mass only the bread is given to the people, while the priests drink the wine. It is not even claimed, by intelligent Roman Catholics, that this was;the primitive and Apostolic practice. The words of Jesus are too plain to be misconstrued. Read them in Mark 14: 23: “And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of jt; ’ — repeated in substance by Paul, in 1 Cor. 11: 28:
“Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.” After examination, he must eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.
The reasons given by the Council of Trent for taking the wine from the laity are worthy of study.
1. “The holy Eucharist should at all times be in readiness for the sick; and, if the species of wine remain long standing unconsumed, it were to be apprehended that it may become vapid.”
And because wine may become vapid, therefore it should not be given to the laity; or, because wine may not be handy to administer to the sick, it should be withheld from all! As if it were not about as easy to get the fruit of the vine for the sick, as to get the wafer!
2. “The greatest caution is necessary to avoid accident or indignity, which must come almost inevitably, if the chalice were administered in crowded assemblies.” And, to prevent accident or indignity, z.e., lest a little drop of the wine should be spilled, or get upon the beards of the people, it should not be given to them at all; let the priest, who wears no beard, be the only one to drink it! t
8. “There are many who cannot bear the taste or smell of — wine.’ And, for the sake of ,the few, it may be one in a million, who cannot bear the taste or the smell of wine, it is to be withheld from the laity entirely; to be sure, they were pressed for a reason!
4. Finally: “A circumstance which principally influenced the church in éstablishing this practice; means were to be devised to crush the heresy which denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species (that is, of bread and wine), and asserted that the body is contained under the species of breid without the wine, and the blood under the species of the wine without the bread. The object was attained by communion under the species of bread alone, which places, as it were, sensibly before our eyes, the truth of the Catholic faith.”:
In other words, in order to crush the heresy which contended that the bread represented the body of Christ, and the wine represented the blood of Christ, the one is taken away, and the people, on the authority of the church, compelled to believe that both body and blood is in the bread alone!
One of the evils of keeping the wine from the people, is the fact that it is all given to the priests: and the result is to a large extent, a wine-drinking priesthood. There need be no surprise. A man who is compelled early in the morning, before breakfast, to drink a glass of wine, and then, perhaps, another glass; and, after breakfast, repeat it two or three times a day, will, in the very nature of the case, acquire a taste and then the raving appetite for drink, which demands more drink to quench it, and continues to burn like a fire, till body and soul are consumed.
IV. In the Lord’s Supper the bread is broken. In the Mass it is given entire. “This is my body,” said Jesus, “which was broken for you.” The priest makes the bread into a little circular water, and it is put entire upon the tongue of the communicant — no breaking. The whole of Christ is taken! and the true meaning of the ordinance destroyed. This broken body, set before us on the cross in the words of Scripture, and before our eyes in the Lord’s Supper, is your redemption and mine. Let the breaking of that body break our hearts! Let the spilling of that blood make us willing to spill our blood for him. Let our gratitude go forth to the Christ of the broken body and the broken heart. “And I, if I be lifted up,” said Jesus, “will draw all men unto me.” Have we been drawn by that uplifted Jesus? Yield to the drawings of the love there shown forth, and become his servant and brother for ever!