045. Chapter 40: The Lord's Supper
------------ CHAPTER FORTY ------------ The Lord’s Supper In the natural realm, one is first born, and afterwards is continually in need of food in order to grow and be strengthened. This is also true in the spiritual realm: A person is first born again, and afterwards he is continually in need of nourishment. The Word of God is the means for both, and the Lord has also given signs and seals in addition to that Word. The first sacrament is baptism which seals regeneration, the washing away of sin, and the incorporation into Christ and into His church. We have discussed this in the previous chapter. The second sacrament is the Lord’s Supper, by which the spiritual life received in regeneration is nourished and strengthened. We shall now consider this sacrament. The Scriptural Names for the Lord’s Supper
Scripture denominates this sacrament as the Lord’s Supper: “... this is not to eat the Lord’s supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20). It is called a supper since it was instituted in the evening. The Passover lamb had to be killed between two evenings and between light and dark, this being the latter part of the previous day and the beginning of the next day. This, according to Jewish calculations, began at sundown. By the time it was prepared and eaten, it would already be far into the evening. Upon having eaten the Passover (that is, the Old Testament sacrament), the Lord Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. It could not have been instituted any earlier since the Lord’s Supper replaced the Passover, and two sacraments of identical nature could not have been observed at the same time. It could also not have been instituted later, for the Lord Jesus was captured that very night and put to death on the next day. Therefore, the chronological circumstances have nothing to do with the essence of the matter. The early church frequently celebrated the Lord’s Supper in the evening, as formal meals were then served in the evening. (Cf. Matthew 25:12-13, etc.; Acts 2:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:7.) Furthermore, persecutions later forced them to gather during the night. Then they would have their agapai (or love meals), at which time they partook of this sacrament (1 Corinthians 11:1-34). These love meals -- due to the increase of the congregation and abuses which had crept in -- were discontinued, and only the use of the sacrament remained. The apostle also refers to this sacrament as the table of the Lord (1 Corinthians 10:21), signifying the food which one placed on it for consumption. The celebration of the Lord’s Supper is referred to as the breaking of bread (Acts 2:46), and the cup is referred to as the cup of thanksgiving (1 Corinthians 10:16). These denominations are indicative of the loving and familiar fellowship of believers among each other, and with Christ, for the nourishment of spiritual life. The soul’s inner communion with Christ is therefore also expressed by the word “supper” (cf. Revelation 3:20; Luke 14:24; Revelation 19:9). The Papists, not being satisfied with this scriptural designation, use an unscriptural word for their unscriptural fabrication: the mass. We shall let them quarrel among each other as to the origin of the word “mass”; we shall hold to Scripture. In our consideration of this sacrament we shall maintain the same order as we did with the previous sacrament. The Lord’s Supper: Instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ The first matter to be considered is the Author of this sacrament; He is the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. the historical record in Matthew 26:1-75, Mark 14:1-72, and Luke 22:1-71). The apostle repeats this institution in 1 Corinthians 11:23-27. We must note Christ’s actions and His words relative to this. The actions of Christ are four:
(1) He took the bread into His hands, and after this the cup.
(2) He blessed and gave thanks, as all nourishment must be sanctified by prayer (1 Timothy 4:5). As Christ blessed the nourishment which He distributed to others (Matthew 14:19), He likewise has also blessed this bread and this wine -- and thus also gave thanks for it -- so that the efficacy for the communicants would be such as was intended by its institution. In doing so, that bread and that wine are set apart from common bread and wine for sacred use.
(3) He broke the bread, whereas we cut our bread; however, in those countries (which is still true in many countries) the bread is broken with the hand when it is eaten. When instituting this sacrament, the Lord likewise took bread and broke it, and thus gave such a fragment to every disciple.
(4) He gave it to His disciples; that is, not into their mouths, but into their hands, as is customary at ordinary meals. The words of Christ are both imperative and expository in nature. The imperative words are three in number:
(1) Take, that is, extend your hand, take hold of it, and help yourself.
(2) Eat, that is, I give it to you -- not to preserve it, or to recline with it as having been sufficiently satisfied by the eating of the Passover, but I give it to you to eat it in the presence of everyone.
(3) Do this in remembrance of Me, that is, do this individually; and as I have commissioned you to preach and to baptize, I likewise obligate you to commit this sacrament to My church and to command her to keep it, so that My suffering and death may thus be continually depicted before her eyes, and she keep in remembrance My merits on her behalf and My love toward her. Maintain this practice. The expository words (which simultaneously yield the motive for compliance) are, “this is My body,” and “this cup is the new testament in My blood.” It is the symbol and representation of My suffering and death, and a seal that My body has thus been broken for you, and that My blood has in this manner been shed for you for the forgiveness of your sins.
These words, “this is My body,” are not the essence of the institution itself; rather, the entire history related to it constitutes the institution. These words also do not have a sanctifying influence, much less do they change the bread into Christ’s body -- a matter to be discussed further on. The sacraments are rendered sacred by thanksgiving and blessing. Thanksgiving is expressed toward God for the work of redemption on the basis of Christ’s suffering and death. The blessing upon the bread and the wine occurs by way of prayer -- the prayer being that God would impress these signs as seals upon the heart of believers in order that they may be strengthened and encouraged thereby. This prayer of thanksgiving and blessing implies the consecration of the common bread and wine for holy usage so that they may be signs and seals. However, the benediction and the blessing had already been pronounced prior to Christ expressing the words, “this is My body,” for Christ did not say this until after He had taken, broken, and given, or was taking, breaking, and giving the bread. Also, these words are neither a prayer nor a benediction, nor are they of an imperative or ordaining nature, but they are narrative and expository in nature. They convey the manner in which this bread and wine must be viewed and used: as signs and seals of His suffering and death for believers. The text itself also contradicts the Papists, since the word “for” is not found in the text -- they have added this. If this word had been uttered by Christ, then the words “this is My body” would give the disciples reason to take and eat the same, so that the bread would already have been Christ’s body prior to expressing these words.
Moreover, if these words “this is My body” had the power to bring about a change, one would have to relate them as Christ did -- and thus not add a word as they do by adding the word “for.” Also, the words which pertain to the cup are recorded variously by the evangelists. Matthew says, “... for this is My blood”; Mark omits the word “for,” and Luke says, “... this cup is the New Testament of My blood.” It is thus evident that the power to bring about change is not inherent in the usage of these words -- indeed, no essential change occurs in the Lord’s Supper. In the entire Bible there is not one word to be found about such a change. From this institution it is also evident how the ministers of the Word must administer the Lord’s Supper today, and must consecrate the bread and wine. This is not to be done by muttering under one’s breath and by pronouncing the words “for this is My body” while blowing and hissing as the wizards do. “... Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter” (Isaiah 8:19); in this they are imitated by the Papists. Rather the act of consecration, that is, setting wine and bread apart for sacred use, occurs by way of benediction and blessing, thereby requesting that God, who in His great goodness has given Christ, would also bless these signs so that they may be efficacious to the sealing and strengthening of true faith. After this the minister breaks the bread, and gives and distributes it to the communicants, doing likewise with the cup thereafter. The External Signs of the Lord’s Supper The second matter to be considered in reference to this sacrament is the external signs. We must here take note of the signs and the ceremonies associated with them. The signs are identical to those used in meals in order to nourish and refresh the body: bread and wine. One is to be neither superstitious nor concerned regarding the kind of bread and wine. The bread and wine which Christ used were such as were available and in common use. It is credible that in light of the Passover Christ used unleavened bread; but that was incidental, for leavened bread was neither permitted to be used nor was it available in Jerusalem at that time. It is therefore not necessary to follow suit in this respect. It must be bread which one commonly uses for nourishment, thus to typify the spiritual nourishment of the soul. The wafers of the Papists and the Lutherans consist more of foam than of bread, and are not suitable for nourishment and strengthening. This is contrary to the institution of the Lord’s Supper; Christ had no wafers, but took bread, broke off fragments, and gave them to the disciples. He did not give a wafer to anyone. As we may not be superstitious relative to the bread, so we must not be superstitious relative to the wine; that is, whether it be pure or diluted with water. The latter is customary in warm countries to prevent it from being overheated. However, it must be the “fruit of the vine” (Matthew 26:29). It is also immaterial whether one drinks the wine from a cup or a glass; likewise the manner in which it is done. Common substances must be used without superstition. The ceremonies associated with these signs are of express significance, and therefore are to be implemented as Christ has exemplified in the institution of it. Christ broke the bread, thereby signifying the breaking of His body, that is, His death. The apostle passes on to the congregation the ceremony of breaking; he refers to it as “the breaking of bread,” and “the bread which we break” (1 Corinthians 10:16). The apostolic church did likewise, “... breaking bread” (Acts 2:46); “... when the disciples came together to break bread” (Acts 20:7). Therefore today the minister also must break the bread and give it as such to the communicants. The Papists and the Lutherans do this in an entirely different manner by giving a wafer to everyone without breaking it. No mention is made of the pouring of the wine. At mealtimes this is generally done by those who serve the table, and therefore in many localities the wine is poured by the deacons at the Lord’s Supper; however, it is, as is necessary, given to the communicants by the hand of the minister.
Question: Must the cup be given to the communicants, as is true for the bread?
Answer: The Papists, motivated by blind superstition, fear that wine could spill out of the cup, or that some of it might cling to the lips or to the beard -- and thus something of Christ’s blood would be lost. Therefore, as an act of ecclesiastical robbery, they have deprived the common man of the cup, which until the year 1415 was given to each communicant along with the bread. In that year, however, the Council of Constance, in its thirteenth session, denied the common man the cup, with the knowledge and conviction that such is contrary to Christ’s institution and gift to His Church.
They do not hesitate to state this boldly, and therefore we read, “This council declares, decrees, and determines that it be known that, although Christ has instituted this worthy sacrament as the Lord’s Supper by means of both signs of bread and wine, it must nevertheless be known that in spite of this ...” A bit further we read: “Even though in the original church the sacrament was received by believers by way of both signs,” etc. Contrary to this, we maintain that the cup, as well as the bread, must be given to believers. This is, first of all, evident from the institution of the Lord’s Supper by Christ, who, according to their own confession, instituted it by way of bread and wine which He distributed to the apostles. “Drink ye all of it” (Matthew 26:27); “... and they all drank of it” (Mark 14:23).
Evasive Argument: Christ gave the cup to the apostles and not to others, and therefore the priests must have the cup, but not the common man.
Answer (1) By the same argument, then bread must also be withheld from the common man. He should then be deprived of the entire sacrament, and it be reserved for the priests only, as Christ also gave bread to all the disciples and not to others.
(2) The apostles were here not present as apostles, but as communicants. Secondly, the apostle, upon Christ’s injunction to him, instituted the Lord’s Supper among the Corinthians by way of bread and wine, and commanded them both to drink and to eat. “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup ... wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily ... but let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup” (1 Corinthians 11:26-28). Here the apostle addressed the entire congregation of the Corinthians, which primarily consisted of common folk; he commanded them to drink. Therefore the common folk must have the cup as well as the bishops.
Thirdly, the apostle proves that believers have communion with Christ and each other -- urging them to exercise this -- by the fact that they all share the cup and drink from it. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16); “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body ... and have been all made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13). Therefore all who have fellowship with Christ must thus as well drink from the same cup as they eat from the same bread and are baptized with one baptism.
Objection #1: The church is authorized to legislate and to make changes in reference to many matters. She has thus replaced immersion by sprinkling in baptism, and the church is therefore also authorized to administer the Lord’s Supper by means of bread alone.
Answer (1) Sprinkling in baptism is founded upon God’s Word.
(2) Scripture makes no restrictions as far as immersion and sprinkling are concerned.
(3) Immersion and sprinkling do not pertain to the essence of baptism, but are external circumstances.
(4) The church has no right to add to or take away from the Word of God. If an external aspect of religion is not legislated in Scripture -- be it in reference to time, place, or circumstances -- then there is no restriction as far as the Word of God is concerned. If, however, there is a restriction, command, or prohibition in that regard, the church may not make a change whatsoever.
(5) The giving of the cup is not circumstantial but belongs to the essence of the sacrament, Christ having commanded and instituted it. That is the end of all arguments, and whoever deviates from this, opposes Christ who says, “Drink ye all of it” (Matthew 26:27); “... this do ye” (1 Corinthians 11:25).
Objection #2: The Lord’s Supper has often been celebrated by partaking of the bread only; it is thus not necessary to give the cup to the common man. “And it came to pass, as He sat at meat with them, He took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them” (Luke 24:30); here the cup is not given. “... if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is My flesh” (John 6:51). In the following passages the reference is only to bread. “And they continued stedfastly ... in breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42); “... continuing daily with ... breaking bread” (Acts 2:46); “... the disciples came together to break bread” (Acts 20:7).
Answer (1) These texts, advanced by the Papists, are a rebuke to themselves when they do not break the wafer which they give out.
(2) Luke 24:30 does not refer to the Lord’s Supper; these disciples did not recognize Jesus and would not have received the sacrament from a stranger; it was but a daily meal to which the disciples had invited their unknown guest.
(3) John 6:1-71 also does not speak of the Lord’s Supper which as yet had not been instituted. Furthermore, in this chapter the reference is to the drinking of Christ’s blood, as well as to the eating of His flesh.
(4) In Acts 2:1-47 and Acts 20:1-38 we have a very common manner of speech; bread refers to divers foods, and the eating of bread with someone means to have a meal with him, at which there is both food and drink. “... as He went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread” (Luke 14:1); “Give us this day our daily bread” (Matthew 6:11; cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:8
Objection #3: In Christ’s body there is also blood; he who therefore eats bread, that is, Christ’s body, also partakes of the blood of Christ.
Answer (1) The bread is not Christ’s body, but it is and remains bread.
(2) One must not pretend to be wiser than the Lord Jesus who has instituted and commanded the use of the cup.
(3) Even though there is blood in a body, one does not drink this -- and here one is commanded to drink.
(4) The bread does not signify Christ’s blood, but His body; the wine does not signify His flesh, but His blood. Each must be partaken of individually.
(5) Why then are the priests not satisfied with bread only? Who has given them the privilege of the cup above the common man? The Matter Signified in the Lord’s Supper
Thirdly, we must reflect upon the matter signified in the Lord’s Supper. The signs have not been instituted for the purpose of serving God by partaking of them, for God is a Spirit who must be served in a spiritual manner. These external signs conceal spiritual matters. Christ has instituted bread as a sign and symbol of His body, and the breaking of it as a sign of the breaking of His body by His suffering and death. “This is My body which is given for you” (Luke 22:19); “... this is My body, which is broken for you” (1 Corinthians 11:24). The wine is a symbol of Christ’s blood which was shed in consequence of a violent death. “This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20). When seeing these signs, the communicant must not end in them mentally, but must proceed to the matter signified, that is, to the body and blood of Christ -- broken and shed to satisfy God’s justice for the sins of believers. Thus, he must unite the sign to the matter signified. One must not do so on the basis of his own imagination, for then he would be able to ascend to the suffering and death of Christ by way of the physical; rather, one ought to do so upon the basis of Christ’s institution. It is thus not a union established by way of human imagination, but it is a union in the true sense of the word. However, it is not a local or physical union, but a spiritual union which is founded upon and derives its veracity from Christ’s institution. This union therefore does not relate to the substances of bread and wine as they are in the dish and in the cup at that moment; that is, apart from being used in the sacrament.
Instead, this union comes about when the communicant, by virtue of Christ’s institution, exercises faith, taking note of the instituted relationship between the sign and the matter signified. This is similar to a stone which, taken from a pile and placed as a boundary marker upon the land, is not changed as far as its nature is concerned, but as to how it is viewed. The Harmony Between the Sign and the Matter Signified The fourth matter to be considered is the harmony between the sign and the matter signified, this being nourishment and refreshment. God has granted believers a twofold life: There is a natural life, which they have in common with all men, and they have spiritual life, which consists in the union of the soul with God. God also gives His people a twofold nourishment for this twofold life. He gives them food and drink for the maintenance of natural life, of which bread and wine are the most prominent. God also gives food and drink for the maintenance of spiritual life. Christ is this food and drink. By way of natural food and drink, that is, bread and wine, the Lord signifies the spiritual: Christ’s body and blood. Thus as bread and wine have a nourishing and invigorating power when one partakes of them, Christ’s body and blood (His suffering and death) upon being received by faith likewise nourish, strengthen, and invigorate spiritual life. “Eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved” (Song of Solomon 5:1).
Since these signs are not only symbolic, but also sealing, the believer thus accepts them as seals and, upon the basis of the promise, presses them upon his heart, believing that Christ’s body has been broken for him, and His blood has been shed for him. He believes that thereby he has the forgiveness of sins and is a partaker of Christ and all the benefits of the covenant confirmed in Christ’s death. A believer thus receives Christ while partaking of the signs and uniting the sign to the matter signified. He considers the signs as tokens of Christ’s love for him, His merits on his behalf, and of His immutability in making him an eternal partaker of these benefits. It is thus that this spiritual food and drink nourish and refresh him in his spiritual life. The Purpose for the Institution of the Lord’s Supper The fifth matter to be considered is the purpose for which the Lord’s Supper was instituted. This consists in these three particulars:
First, there is the remembrance; that is, the declaration and confession of Christ, His suffering and death, and of what He has merited by reason of this suffering and death. “This do in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19); “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come” (1 Corinthians 11:26). This was not only true for the initial period of the apostolic church, as if -- as some erring spirits maintain (having shown this in the previous chapter) -- its intent was to remember that in Christ all types have been fulfilled, and to distinguish the Christians from the Gentiles and their sacrifices to idols. Rather, this is a sacrament given by Christ to His church and passed on by the apostles, doing so without any chronological restriction and thus for as long as the church will exist -- until the end of the world (which also has been shown earlier).
Secondly, there is the sealing function. Previously we have also shown that the sacraments are sealing in nature. Thus, the bread and the wine seal to the believer that they are partakers of Christ and all that He has merited by His suffering and death; they are not merely signs of the mutual communion of believers, as is the view of the Anabaptists and Socinians. This is confirmed in the following passages: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16); “... this is My body” (Matthew 26:28); “... this is My blood” (Matthew 26:28). It is the goodness of God that He not only promises the forgiveness of sins to believers, nor only depicts by whom and how they receive the forgiveness of sins, but He furthermore gives them an earnest and seal, in order that they would believe that God indeed is, and will eternally remain, a reconciled God and Father to them in Christ, so that by this knowledge they may live in comfort and joy. Since the Lord Jesus has instituted this sacrament as a seal, believers must use it as such, and they, upon receiving the sacrament, must consider themselves as being sealed and rejoice in their temporal and eternal blessedness.
Thirdly, there is the mutual communion of believers. “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17). Communion does not occur with all who go to the holy table, for the communion which believers have with the unconverted does not go beyond a common confession. There is only communion with the godly -- with those they know as well as those they do not know, and with those that are present as well as those who are absent -- and thus not only with those of this particular church, but also with all who are dispersed over the entire world, for they unite themselves with Christ, and in Him with His body which is the church. Their love extends toward them all, and being thus united with them, they are in agreement with all of them in their confession of Christ and His truth. The Lord’s Supper and the Popish Mass
Until the year AD 800 the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper remained pure and all that was verbally expressed regarding it referred to its usage, the relationship between sign and signified matter, and its sealing efficacy. From that time forward, however, there was a gradual departing from this truth, and foundations for the most dreadful idolatry were laid. The Papists fully deny the sealing function of the Lord’s Supper, since they consider the bread and wine to be Christ’s body and blood, and thus Christ Himself. Furthermore, they also maintain that every communicant, with his physical mouth, partakes of the entire Christ in His flesh -- that is, God and man as He was born of Mary and crucified upon Golgotha -- and swallows Him bodily. To afford this a semblance of veracity, they maintain that the priest performing the mass -- by mumbling under his breath these words, for this is My body -- changes the bread and the wine, in very essence to the natural body and blood of Christ (His soul and Godhead included), and thus makes God from that piece of bread. Consequently, as many Christs come into existence as there are wafers over which he mutters these words. Being not yet satisfied with this, they transform the Lord’s Supper into a sacrifice -- not of praise and thanksgiving, but as an atoning sacrifice in the literal sense of the word. Thus no one has the forgiveness of sins by the suffering of Christ unless Christ’s body is daily broken and sacrificed for them. They do not dare to say that His blood is shed daily; but since the body of Christ is being broken, His blood must also of necessity be shed. They break the wafer -- which to them is Christ -- without Christ Himself being broken. How can the wafer be broken, however, without Christ’s body being broken, if the wafer is Christ Himself? This they call the mass, in which the celebrant (whom they call the priest) stands before a table (which they call an altar) decorated with silver, gold, and other physical ostentations, and with images, crosses, and burning candles (even during the middle of the day). He furthermore performs many ridiculous and ludicrous ceremonies such as the removal of a book from one location to the other, the making of knee-bends, the repeated overturning of stones, the ringing of bells, and a muttering behind his garment which he has lifted up from behind him. Last of all, he makes a Christ, that is, a God, out of his wafer, which he then lifts above his head and shows to those who are present for the purpose of worship. This they do while bending their knees and smiting upon their breasts with great reverence. After the bread-god has been worshiped, he breaks him in pieces with a feigned trembling of his limbs -- as if he were terrified. He then consumes him, upon which he empties the cup with one draught, having made its wine into the blood of his God. This then is a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, be it for the living or for the souls in purgatory who are strengthened by it as a hungry person is strengthened who dreams that he eats. Having concluded this, he declares, “Ita missa est,” that is, this is in return for your money.
They always have a supply of such created bread-gods at hand. They place them in a glass enclosure and occasionally they will carry this bread-god with great pomp along the street, obliging every one on the street to kneel before this god and to worship him. They daily carry these gods, having been worshiped along the way, in such enclosures to the sick. They then give this bread-god to sick persons who swallow him as their last meal or, when incapable of doing so, vomit him into a water basin; and there lies their god.
They pronounce the anathema -- that is, the curse, which is as powerful and as much to be feared as their breadgod himself -- upon those who cannot believe this and who will neither bow before this bread-god nor honor him in any form. Yes, not being satisfied with the pronouncement of curses, they kill and, by a thousand different methods of torture, bring to their end all who do not wish to honor this bread-god and will not join them in the commission of this most dreadful idolatry. Thus, this great harlot of Babylon with all her cannibals and drinkers of blood has become drunk with the blood of holy martyrs. This is the abomination of anti-Christianity. This is the “strong delusion to believe lies” which God has sent them, not having received the love for the truth in order to be saved (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11). He who does not wish to be eternally damned must abstain from this most dreadful idolatry and should rather die a thousand deaths than that he would deny Christ and be a partaker of their idolatry -- lest he come with them into the eternal pool of fire prepared for all idolaters. “... idolaters ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death” (Revelation 21:8). The Error of Transubstantiation In order to uncover the abominableness of this idolatry, we shall raise some questions and answer them. Transubstantiation (or a change of essence) is the foundation for this error. Once we refute this, everything founded upon it will necessarily topple.
Question: Does the proclamation of the five words, for this is My body, change the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the natural and essential body and blood of Christ (His soul and Godhead being included), and thus into Christ Himself?
Answer: The papists answer resolutely in the affirmative; however, they are very much at odds with each other as to how this change transpires, and by the arguments which they use to refute each other’s arguments (which from both sides are equally powerful and irrefutable) they unravel the very doctrine of transubstantiation which they seek to establish from both perspectives. The one party maintains that the bread is annihilated and removed, and that the body and blood of Christ instantly descend from heaven to replace the bread and the wine. The other party maintains that the body and blood of Christ issue forth from the substance of the bread and wine. Some call transubstantiation a preserving change and others call it a creative change; some call it a unifying change, and others are of a different opinion. It is no wonder that they are so divided and attack each other so vehemently, for a lie cannot be corrected -- and in order to cover this up, they should be in agreement, lest they make it all the more evident. They are also not in agreement about the timing of this change. The one maintains that this change transpires when the priest says the word hoc (this); the second party maintains that it is when he says est (is); and the third party maintains that it is when he says meum (My). No one maintains that it is when he says enim (for), since they know that this is not recorded in the Bible, but has been added by them. It can be easily deduced from this that if all the words which together engender the efficacy of transubstantiation are not to be found in the Bible -- if one of the five words were to be left out, this change would not occur -- this doctrine would be entirely extra-biblical.
We indeed admit that
(1) the bread and the wine of the Lord’s Supper change in a relative sense and are appointed as signs of Christ’s body; this is indeed not true for other bread;
(2) the bread and wine have been instituted as seals to assure believers that the body of Christ has been broken for them and that His blood has been shed for the forgiveness of their sins;
(3) believers, in partaking of it, unite the sign with the matter signified by an active faith, doing so upon the basis of Christ’s institution.
Thereby they spiritually receive Christ, unite themselves with Christ, and become a partaker of Him, doing all this in very deed and in truth. We resolutely deny, however, that this change is one of essence. We shall prove this.
Proof #1: A matter of such importance whereby a man becomes an idolater if there is no such thing as transubstantiation (that is, a change in essence), should expressly have been made known in Scripture, the only rule for doctrine and life. There is, however, not one word or letter to be found concerning this in the entire Word of God. Let one single text be shown which expresses that the bread and the wine are transformed into the essential body and blood of Christ upon the pronouncement of the five words in question, and that the bread and the wine are also changed into both the soul and Godhead of Christ. They are not satisfied with the bread being transformed into Christ’s body, for they know that if the soul is absent, there can be no sacrifice which is pleasing to God. They also know that if the bread were not to have become God, then it would be a most abominable act of idolatry if they were to worship it. I repeat, let one single text be produced. They have to this time not been able to respond to this, however, and they will not be able to do so unto all eternity, for there is neither a word nor letter concerning this to be found in the entire Bible. Thus, whatever they say and practice in this respect is but a human fabrication, which therefore must be rejected with abhorrence and the greatest aversion.
Proof #2: It is expressly contrary to Christ’s institution of this sacrament which is recorded in Matthew 26:1-75, Mark 14:1-72, Luke 22:1-71, and 1 Corinthians 11:1-34. One will not find the words transubstantiation, change of essence, and transformation, but the contrary. The institutional formula is clear and evident; a plain person who reads the words of the institutional formula can understand them at once. It is stated clearly that Christ took bread, and that He blessed that which He took (as He always did when He partook of food). It is evident that He broke this bread which He had taken and blessed, that He gave this broken bread to His disciples, and that He commanded them to eat this bread. One will observe that all this had transpired prior to His pronouncement of the five words (Christ, however, only said four words), “for this is My body,” and thus the bread could not have been changed by the pronouncement of these words -- or else it should, after breaking and giving it, have been changed in the hands and mouths of the disciples; thus they contradict themselves.
Concerning the words this, is, and My body, the following is to be noted. One even without education will be able to see with a glance that the word this refers to the bread which He had taken, broken, and given. Paul states this clearly: “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16); “... the Lord Jesus ... took bread: And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is My body, which is broken for you. ... For as often as ye eat this bread ... let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread” (1 Corinthians 11:23-28). Anyone who does not pretend to be blind will readily observe that it is bread rather than the body of Christ which is being broken, given, and eaten. Furthermore, by the giving of the cup it is said, “this cup” (Luke 22:20). This is likewise true for “this bread.” Also, in each transformation there is something which changes and there is something into which it changes, and therefore there is either no change or the word this must be understood to refer to bread. Furthermore, what a peculiar statement this would be if one were to understand the word this to refer to Christ’s body, for then it would be, “this body is My body; this is My body and the communion with My body.”
Christ says, “This is My body.” A plain person will first of all be able to see that the word is does not mean to change or to become, but that in this context it means as much as to say “Christ’s broken body,” that is, His suffering and death. This manner of speech is very common in social conversation, in Scripture, in speech unrelated to the sacraments, and in the sacraments. One can say of a painting: “This is the king of England, and that is the king of France.” The bride says about her engagement ring: “This is my fidelity.” Everyone knows that in such cases the word is implies that this is the image or the likeness of this king, and that this is the token and the seal which the bridegroom has given as a confirmation of his fidelity. This manner of speech is equally common in Holy Writ. We read there as follows: “The seven good kine are seven years” (Genesis 41:26); “The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy ... is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels” (Matthew 13:38-39); “The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches” (Revelation 1:20); “The seven heads are seven mountains ... and the woman ... is that great city” (Revelation 17:9
We have the same expression relative to circumcision, “This is My covenant” (Genesis 17:10). It is irrefutable that the word this refers to circumcision, and that it is not the covenant itself. Rather, it means as much as to say, “This is a sign of the covenant” -- it signifies the covenant. We have the same manner of speech when saying, “this is My covenant,” or “this is My body.” This is also true for holy baptism, which is called “the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5). Baptism is neither the washing nor is it changed into this. Baptism is also not regeneration; however, baptism -- as performed by either immersion or sprinkling -- is a sign and seal of regeneration.
We must yet consider the last words, My body. It is not a point of contention that the words, “this bread is (signifies) My body,” refer to the natural body of Christ, as being born of Mary and crucified upon Golgotha. Rather, the question is how this must be understood. It must not be understood as referring to the vital union of His body with His soul and Godhead, that is, the Person of the Godhead, but as being broken and crucified, so that it must be understood to refer to the suffering of Christ.
(1) For the Lord Jesus says this Himself: “This is My body which is given for you” (Luke 22:19); “... this is My body, which is broken for you” (1 Corinthians 11:24). It is also written about the wine, “For this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many” (Matthew 26:28).
(2) It is likewise confirmed by the fact that in the Lord’s Supper the bread and the wine, signifying the body and blood of Christ, were each consecrated separately, were each passed out individually, and in like manner consumed -- all of which naturally is expressive of the death of Christ, which also must be commemorated and declared in the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:26).
(3) Since these signs are also seals of the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28), and since the forgiveness of sins has been merited by Christ’s death (Romans 5:10), the bread as it is present therefore signifies the body of Christ as being crucified and not as being glorified. The bread signifies the death of Christ and not Him who is now in heaven at the right hand of God. From that which has been said, we draw the following conclusion:
(1) If neither at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, nor anywhere in the Word of God, mention is made of transubstantiation, that is, of an essential transformation of the bread and the wine into the natural body and blood of Christ;
(2) if the institutional formula clearly states that Christ took bread, blessed bread, broke bread, gave bread, commanded to eat bread (all of this coming prior to the statement, “this is my body,” as well as the words pertaining to the cup), and if after the blessing and also after the pronouncement of these words, the bread remains and is bread upon being eaten (1 Corinthians 11:1-34);
(3) if among those words the relative pronoun this refers to the bread, and the word is cannot and is not to be understood to have any other meaning than signifies -- it being understood as such in general conversation, in Holy Writ apart from the sacraments, and as used for the other sacraments where the word is means as much as signifies -- and the word body is to be noted as being broken and crucified, then neither is the bread transformed into Christ’s body, nor the wine into His blood. Since the first part of the argument is true, as we have presently shown, the latter part is also true.
Proof #3: It is irrefutably true that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament. If such a change of essence from bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ did indeed occur in the Lord’s Supper, it would be no sacrament, for in all sacraments these five matters must be true: 1) its institution as a sacrament; 2) the presence of an external, physical sign; 3) the signification of a spiritual matter which points to Christ; 4) a relationship between the sign and the matter signified; and 5) its purpose -- which is to signify and to seal. All of this has been proven above. Such an essential change thus nullifies all this.
(1) It eradicates the external, physical sign, for it implies that the bread and wine are removed and do not exist when they are consumed.
(2) It eradicates the matter signified, for if the sign ceases to exist, this is likewise true for the matter signified. If the bread is the body of Christ itself, it would not signify anything. It furthermore would destroy the body of Christ itself, since it robs the body of Christ of its magnificence, visibility, tangibility, and unity.
(3) It eradicates the relationship between the sign and the matter signified, for there is no longer a sign and no longer a matter being signified.
(4) It eradicates the purpose of the sacrament, for in the absence of a sign there is also no seal -- which it nevertheless is, as it seals the suffering and death of Christ to believers. Since the body and blood of Christ itself would be present, it eliminates the remembrance of them, for remembrance relates to something which is absent. It thus follows that there is no such essential change.
Proof #4: Such a change does not occur in any of the sacraments; no one maintains that this is so. Yet the same manner of speech is used relative to the other sacraments: This is the Passover; this is My covenant, baptism, the washing of regeneration. The lamb remained a lamb and did not become Christ; circumcision continued to be the cutting off of the foreskin; and the water in baptism remains water. Since all sacraments are of one and the same nature, however, all have the five requirements just mentioned, and if such a change neither occurs relative to the two sacraments of the Old Testament, nor to baptism in the New Testament, there is also no such change for the Lord’s Supper; sacraments are identical in nature.
Proof #5: Transubstantiation unravels several articles of faith confessed by the parties themselves, for such an essential change:
(1) Eradicates the truth concerning the human nature of Christ, whereby He became like unto us in all things. A human body without actual dimensions, capable of being represented by a crumb of bread, is not a human body. That which is separated in thousands of millions of places is not singular, but multiple in nature, and thus cannot be the one body which was born of Mary. That which is invisible and non-tangible is not a true human body. Therefore, if such an essential change indeed took place, Christ would not have a true human body as we do.
(2) Eradicates the one sacrifice of Christ by His death, for it intimates that Christ dies thousands of times each day, and that His body is broken and His blood is shed many times.
(3) Eradicates and conflicts with the ascension of Christ, which teaches that Christ’s body, which visibly ascended into heaven, is indeed there and will remain there until the last day, “For if He were on earth, He should not be a priest” (Hebrews 8:4). Transubstantiation implies, however, that this body continues to be on earth and is preserved by the church in special containers.
(4) Eradicates and conflicts with His second return unto judgment when we expect Christ from heaven. This could then not be true, for He would already be upon earth -- and if He is already bodily present in all the churches upon earth, one would be expecting Him in vain. This proves the falsehood of this pretended change.
Proof #6: In addition to the proofs from Scripture, we shall also add one or two from the natural realm. First of all, God is a God of truth, who has implanted truth in His creatures and has given man the understanding to know this truth and to steadfastly walk therein. God, however, has ordained that an object can only be at one locality and that each object has its own location. Thus, the location occupied by the one object cannot simultaneously be occupied by another or many other objects. Each object has its own proper size and dimensions so that a thousand elephants cannot be in the same location as a small fly. An existing object, being one and the same object as long as it exists, can neither be created nor produced thousands of times. Also, an object or substance cannot be without its own proper qualifications and essential attributes. One and the same body, being alive at one location, cannot be dying and be dead at another location. As far as occurrences are concerned, an occurrence cannot transpire independently from a substance, for the occurrence would then no longer be an occurrence but a substance. Also, one particular occurrence cannot transpire in relation to one substance after the other. These truths are inherent in the realm of nature, and man acknowledges them as infallible truths.
Transubstantiation thus is entirely contrary to nature and eradicates the law of nature in respect to independent entities as well as incidents. It teaches
1) that one and the same body of Christ is daily present at hundreds of thousands of localities, each miles apart from each other. The Papists maintain that there are as many bodies of Christ -- and thus also as many Christs in the world -- as there are wafers which are consecrated and which daily are being consecrated, while yet maintaining that it is but one and the same body of Christ;
2) that the entire body of Christ -- its size being as it has hung on the cross -- with all its members occupies the space of a small crumb of bread, and that the feet are where the hands are -- the head and all other members also occupying the same space -- while yet preserving the identical size and dimensions of the body;
3) that the body of Christ, while being and remaining in heaven, is generated thousands upon thousands of times by the act of consecration, and yet remains one and the same body;
4) that the same body of Christ, while living in glory in heaven, is broken upon earth, is trampled upon by human feet, and can be eaten by rats and mice;
5) that the same visible and tangible body of Christ to which He referred (Luke 24:39) was simultaneously invisible and intangible, etc.; and
6) that the characteristics of bread and wine -- smell, taste, and its ability to feed and to make drunk -- remain without their being bread and wine, for the latter are removed in their opinion. Observe therefore that transubstantiation is utter foolishness as well as a lie. One can hardly believe that people are capable of subscribing to such nonsense; however, God has sent them a strong delusion to believe the lie, having rejected the love for the truth. As foolish as their doctrine is, they yet endeavor to protect it by some evasive arguments.
Evasive Argument #1: The sacraments obligate one to believe, and wherever faith is exercised, reason must yield.
Answer (1) That faith which is required in the sacraments consists in believing that Christ has ordained bread and wine to be signs and seals of His crucified body unto the forgiveness of sins. Faith, however, does not relate to the nature of the bread and wine, any more than it does to the nature of the water in baptism; the nature of both is infallibly known.
(2) God never commands us to believe something which inherently is a lie and unravels His truth established in nature -- all this is true for transubstantiation. God does indeed command us to believe something that is beyond the reach of reason, but never in that which is contrary to truth and which is contrary to reason; that is, when the truth of the matter is correctly understood.
(3) Sometimes faith relates to invisible things conjoined to physical objects, such as is true for all sacraments. Faith must then be exercised toward those matters which are invisible and transcend reason, while yet maintaining the true nature of the physical objects. Faith is not exercised toward that which one can see (Romans 8:24).
Evasive Argument #2: God is omnipotent and can do whatever pleases Him, and He is thus indeed able to do all the above-mentioned matters.
Answer: (1) Although God is omnipotent, He nevertheless cannot lie (Titus 1:2). To do these contradictory matters mentioned before, is to lie, for this would be contrary to the truths God has assigned to these matters. He, therefore, cannot do this. Thus, truth, not omnipotence, is the issue here.
(2) Even if God were able to do it -- which He nevertheless cannot do, it being contrary to truth -- it nevertheless does not follow that God necessarily wishes to and actually does do so.
Proof #7: All men at all times -- by way of touch and due to the nourishing and inebriating efficacy of bread and wine -- have by their external senses of smell, taste, and touch verified that after the consecration, not the least essential change has occurred in the bread and wine -- considering that all senses function normally, internally as well as externally, as far as the required circumstances are concerned. It has been verified that, rather than being a human body and human blood, it truly is and remains bread and wine, just as it was prior to this moment. This cannot be refuted. It is thus certain that there is no such thing as transubstantiation and that it is a matter of the utmost foolishness and dishonesty to maintain that the bread and wine are transformed into Christ’s body and blood by the pronouncement of five words.
Evasive Argument: Against this no response is made other than that 1) one is required to believe here as stated in the answer above; 2) one can be deceived by his senses.
Answer (1) That which can be does not necessarily have to be.
(2) That which has been experienced in identical fashion by all the senses of all healthy people at all times is according to truth and cannot be deceptive. Everyone is certain of this, and he who would refute this would rightfully be considered insane. From all this we conclude with certainty and assurance that the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper are not changed into the body and blood of Christ. Let us now answer their objections.
Objection #1: The words of Christ, “this is My body,” must be understood literally, and thus the word this does not refer to bread. It is evident that its gender does not agree with that of the word “bread,” but rather with that of “body”; it thus refers to “body.” The word “body” literally refers to Christ’s body, as born of Mary and crucified upon Golgotha. The word is must also be interpreted literally as to mean “to be so naturally and in very deed.”
Answer: First, this objection does not pertain to the point of contention. The point of contention is whether or not the bread and wine upon the pronouncement of these words, “for this is My body,” are changed into the natural body and blood of Christ. These words, however, do not contain one letter or dot pointing to transubstantiation or change of substance, nor do they imply that this change would occur upon the pronouncement of those words. It is thus very evident that by using these words as an argument one misses the point of contention. Herewith we have answered this objection. To provide ample proof, however, we shall follow this argument step by step.
Secondly, the word this does indeed refer to the bread which Christ took, broke, and gave; this has been proven above. The argument advanced by the opposing parties, namely, that the word this refers to the body rather than to the bread since its gender does not agree with the latter, is automatically invalidated.
(1) The word this cannot be viewed here as adjectival, but must necessarily be considered as a substantive. If it were adjectival, the words would read as follows: This My body is, that is, it exists. This is nonsensical, for the disciples saw that Christ was indeed bodily present, and the repetition of the word “body” would be illogical -- for then it would read this my body is my body.
(2) If one relates the word this to the body, they themselves overthrow their transubstantiation; for then there would be nothing that was changed, since in every change there is something which changes and there is something which is the result of the change. That which is to come forth from the change is the body, but if the word this does not refer to bread, there is nothing which is changed into Christ’s body. Some parties perceive this and they are therefore very much in disagreement among themselves.
Thirdly, they maintain that the words, My body, must be understood as referring to the natural body of Christ. However, this can immediately be refuted with many arguments, and it can be demonstrated that the text itself refutes them. Christ’s body was present at the table, and Christ, with His hand, took the bread and not His body. He broke the bread and said, “This is My body which is broken for you.” Thus, the body of Christ was declared to be broken, crucified, and put to death while He stood before them alive and uninjured. And, if the body of Christ at that moment had been broken and sacrificed unto the forgiveness of sins, all would already have been finished and Christ would not have had to suffer and die, for He has perfected everything with one sacrifice (Hebrews 10:14).
Fourthly, they wish to understand the word is as declaring that the bread is the natural body of Christ. That it is not the natural body of Christ and that this is not expressed by the word is has also been proven above. We repeat once more that the words, this is My body, must be taken and understood in harmony with Christ’s objective. He expresses His intent to rational people by a manner of speech which is most apparent, clear, common, and understandable. If the word is must be taken for to be in a natural sense, then it could neither have been understood nor comprehended by the disciples, nor by any rational creature; for this would result in a thousand absurdities and a complete reversal of the order of nature. However, when we understand is to mean signifies, then the language is most common, apparent, clear, and understandable. It is an irrefutable fact that it is just as common to understand the word is to mean signifies as to understand its meaning to be in a natural and essential sense. The word must therefore be interpreted according to the context and the matter about which this is said. If one says of a painting, “This is my father, and this is my grandfather”; if one says of an engagement ring, “This is my fidelity”; and if one says by way of a metaphor, “Dan is a serpent, Naphtali is a hind, Issachar is a strong ass, Joseph is a fruitful vine (Genesis 49:1-33), Asshur is a rod, Herod is a fox, and the ungodly are blots, clouds without water, dead trees and wild waves of the sea,” would one then not rightfully be considered a fool in interpreting the word is to mean to be and consequently to exclaim, “Dan, Naphtali, Issachar, and Herod are beasts,” for it is written, “is a serpent, is a hind, is an ass,” etc. Everyone knows, however, that one cannot take these expressions literally; a child will be the judge here. Consider the following as well: Seven kine are seven years, seven heads are seven mountains, and the woman is the great city. It is very obvious that is means as much as to say, signifies. This is much more true concerning Christ: “I am the door, and I am the vine.” It is also written, “Christ is our Passover; the Rock was Christ.” From all this we establish the irrefutable fact that one in actuality must not conclude the word is to refer to natural existence, but that it means as much as to say, signifies.
Evasive Argument: This is indeed true apart from the sacraments, but here we are dealing with a sacrament, and therefore one cannot reason from the first to the latter.
Answer (1) From what has been said, we have observed what is the meaning of the word is. If it has this meaning in this one instance, it can also mean this in another instance. This is indeed certain: Simply because it says is, one cannot conclude that the bread is the natural body of Christ. Rather, one must show from the context that the word is must be taken literally. Such evidence is lacking, however, and as we have shown above it is evident from the entire text that it is not used in a literal sense by Christ.
(2) In order to satisfy them, however, that this is also a common manner of speech in reference to the sacraments, consider what is written concerning the Passover. “It (the Lamb) is the Lord’s passover” (Exodus 12:11). The lamb was not changed by the act of passing by. Consider what is written about circumcision, “This is My covenant” (Genesis 17:10), and about baptism, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us ... but the answer of a good conscience toward God” (1 Peter 3:21). [Note: The Dutch reads as follows: “... die een vraag is van een goed geweten.” The literal translation of this would be, “... which is the answer of a good conscience.”] What more is there to be said? -- perhaps the following. Evasive Argument: In matters pertaining to faith and testaments one must not speak obscurely and figuratively, but one must speak clearly.
Answer (1) He who has given man speech should not be instructed as to how He ought to speak.
(2) Christ generally spoke about matters of faith by means of parables and figurative language.
(3) Jacob’s testament in Genesis 49:1-33 is replete with figurative expressions.
(4) Figurative expressions are to be distinguished from ambiguous expressions. The latter can engender some obscurity; however, figurative expressions are clear, shed more light upon the matter, and express the nature of the matter more clearly and forcefully -- especially if the expression is known and is as common as the actual matter itself, which is true here for the word is.
(5) The opposing parties themselves must be convinced that Christ uses a figurative expression in the institutional formula of the sacrament. “This cup is the new testament” (Luke 22:20). It first of all follows that not the cup itself, but that which it contains is understood by this. Secondly, this cup is not the New Testament, and also its content is not the New Testament. Rather, it is the confirmation and seal of it, which by the shedding of His blood has been fulfilled and accomplished for believers. Furthermore, they do not take the words which is shed literally, for they deny all shedding of blood in the mass, since in their opinion, the blood is not separated from the body, and the pouring out points to the shedding of blood at the cross. It means as much as to say that it would soon be shed, of which Christ made demonstration in the Last Supper. They also must admit that in these words, this is My body, there is a figurative manner of speech. They interpret this in their own way, when they understand this to refer to that which is present under the appearance of bread and wine, or is not yet, but upon the conclusion of the pronouncement of these words, it becomes an independent entity in the general sense of the word or an invididuum vagum, that is, something undefined and without name, etc. They vehemently disagree, however, about this among each other. Neither do they interpret the word is in its literal sense, but understand this to mean either, is comprehended, shall be, be, bechanged or be transubstantiated. They also do not take the word body literally, considering it to be either a body without size, with size but without dimension, or with both size and dimension but not locally defined, for even among themselves the one holds to this and the other to that view. They must all understand everything in a figurative sense, however, for a literal body is both visible and tangible, and its size and dimensions are local in nature. Does the word body also refer to the soul and the Godhead?
Objection #2: “This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20). They insist that one cannot say which, but rather the which -- that is, the cup -- is shed, since the words, is shed, agree in causa not with blood, but rather with cup, and by the cup one must understand that which is in it: the blood of Christ. The meaning would then be as follows: “This My blood, which is shed for you, is the new testament in My blood.” From this they wish to conclude that the wine has been changed into the blood of Christ.
Answer (1) This objection refutes itself, for it is certain that the blood of Christ is separated from Christ’s body. It is then equally certain that there is also a shedding of blood; however, they do not wish to admit both, calling their mass an unbloody sacrifice.
(2) The word cup must indeed be understood to refer to its content, but there was no blood in it, but rather wine -- Christ calls it the “fruit of the vine” (Matthew 26:29).
(3) Even if one were to associate the words, is shed, with the cup, the meaning is equally clear. The cup, that is, the wine which is in it and which will be poured forth, is the New Testament; that is, it seals to believers the New Testament which is sealed in Christ’s blood -- the wine being a sign and a seal of this.
(4) It is common with other writers as well as in the New Testament, that words which agree in causa with another word, nevertheless -- as far as meaning is concerned -- agree with the word upon which one focuses, as is to be observed, for instance, in Matthew 28:19 and Revelation 1:5.
Objection #3: “He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him” (John 6:56).
Answer (1) This text does not refer to the Lord’s Supper, for it neither had been instituted as yet, nor was there any reference or prophecy concerning it. Rather, the reference is to the manna, so that according to the popish argument one could conclude that Christ had been changed into manna, for He says, “I am the bread of life” (John 6:35).
(2) However, Christ here speaks of the spiritual partaking of Christ by faith, which occurs at all times. He does not refer to a physical eating and drinking, for He says expressly in John 6:63, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are life.”
Objection #4: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27).
Answer (1) This text answers for itself, for Paul says that the cup must also be given to the common man, as well as that whatever is eaten and drunk is bread and wine; it is consequently not the body and blood of Christ.
(2) The unworthy partakers make themselves guilty of the body and blood of Christ since such unworthy eating and drinking is to despise and have contempt for the suffering and death of Christ. It is like someone who, in indignation, mars the king’s seal or image, thereby demonstrating that he despises and has contempt for the king himself. It thus remains unmovably true that the wine and bread in the Lord’s Supper are not the literal body and blood of Christ, but rather that they are signs and seals of Christ’s suffering unto the forgiveness of sins. The Error of Consubstantiation Question: Does consubstantiation occur at the Lord’s Supper?
Answer: The Lutherans maintain that the bread and the wine do indeed not change into the body and blood of Christ, but remain bread and wine. Instead, they maintain that Christ’s body and blood are in, with, and under the bread and the wine, and that relative to the words, this is My body, the word this refers to both the bread and the body of Christ together. This they refer to as consubstantiation. We deny this and prove this with the same arguments by which we have refuted popish transubstantiation.
First, this is evident from the history of the institution which relates clearly that:
(1) Christ was bodily, locally, and visibly present at the table, and was not injured, broken, dead, but alive. Christ took the bread, broke and gave it, and the disciples ate the given bread. Christ said of this bread, “This is My body,” so that the word this cannot refer to anything else but the bread only.
(2) Paul understood it thus when he says, “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16). The body of Christ was not the communion of the body of Christ, but only the bread was the communion of Christ, signifying and sealing it.
(3) This is also evident when considering the other sign. Concerning the cup Christ says, “This cup is the new testament.” The word this cannot but refer to the cup, for this cup is added, that is, this wine in the cup. Therefore the word this cannot refer to anything else but the bread, and not simultaneously to Christ’s body as well. For it would then necessarily follow that Christ had two bodies -- one body that was alive and was visibly, tangibly, and locally at the table which took the bread, brake and gave it; and another invisible body which was taken, broken, and given. Or else the one body would have to be simultaneously visible and invisible, and entirely whole, while at the same time broken. This is absurdity itself.
(4) They maintain that these words, this is My body which is broken for you, must be taken literally. They do not in the least way want to permit the possibility of figurative speech. The words themselves will then convince them, however, for they must either agree with the Papists and maintain that it is Christ’s body itself, or else they are without any proof -- for in the words, this is My body, there is not the least reference to in, with, and under. Also, when it is stated, “which is broken,” they must admit something figurative in this expression, for the body of Christ was neither broken at that moment, nor His blood as yet shed. Rather, it means as much as to say (they themselves being the judge), “which shall soon be broken.”
Secondly, the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament. A sacrament is not the matter itself, however, but rather a sign and seal of the matter. If Christ’s body were in, with, and under the bread, it would be the matter itself and it thus would be no sacrament.
Thirdly, there is no such bodily presence in all the other sacraments, and thus also not in this sacrament, for the identical expressions are used in the other sacraments: This is the Passover, this is My covenant, which is the washing of regeneration, and which is the answer of a good conscience. If therefore identical expressions in the other sacraments are not indicative of the presence of Christ as being in, with, and under, then it is also not the case in this sacrament. These expressions are identical, and all sacraments are of one and the same nature: They consist in signs and seals.
Fourthly, such a bodily presence conflicts with the incarnation of Christ, for it denies that Christ has become like us in all things, and thus denies that He is very man of man. It also conflicts with Christ’s ascension and sitting at the right hand of God, which indicate that Christ according to the body is not upon earth, but has left it. It would then necessarily follow that if Christ were still on earth, He Himself would be no High Priest.
Fifthly, such a bodily presence would be destructive of the body, for the entire human body is confined to one place, is impenetrable (that is, the one body does not penetrate the substance of the other), and cannot be in the same place where another body is. A body is tangible, visible, etc. Therefore the proposition of Christ’s bodily presence in the Lord’s Supper is full of absurdities which contradict both nature and Scripture.
Evasive Argument: God is omnipotent, and therefore He can bring it to pass.
Answer: God is a God of truth, and given truths are part and parcel of the nature of His creatures. It is contradictory to be a true body and yet to be invisible, intangible, and penetrable, etc. Furthermore, from the power of God one cannot conclude the existence of something. However, the existence of something under specific circumstances must be proven from God’s revealed will -- from the Word of God. The Word makes no reference whatsoever to the presence of Christ’s body in, with, and under the bread; rather, it testifies of the contrary -- and that is the end of all arguments.
It now being a certainty that the bread and the wine are not changed into the body and blood of Christ, and that the body and blood of Christ are not physically present in, with, and under the bread and the wine, the sentiments of both have necessarily been invalidated, namely, that the body and blood of Christ are physically present in the Lord’s Supper and are in a physical manner eaten and drunk with the physical mouth. We maintain that Christ, as to His suffering and death, is spiritually present in the signs of bread and wine. These signs, by reason of and on the basis of Christ’s institution, are partaken of by faith. Believers are thus united to Christ in His suffering and death -- this being the matter signified -- and partake of these as seals of the forgiveness of sins. We furthermore maintain that the partaking of Christ by faith is immediately applied to the heart, and that spiritual communion is exercised with Christ by virtue of the operation of the Holy Spirit. Christ is thus truly present and believers truly exercise communion with Christ; however, they do so in a spiritual rather than a physical manner -- for that which is spiritual is as real as that which is physical. We reject with abhorrence, however, the physical presence of Christ, and the physical eating and drinking of His natural body and blood by way of the physical mouth.
First, this is evident from all the arguments whereby we have refuted the errors of both parties: transubstantiation and consubstantiation. The foundation having been eradicated, the entire structure of their argument of necessity collapses -- all of which has been dealt with in the above.
Secondly, this is evident from Christ’s ascension. If Christ has ascended to heaven, has left the earth, is with His body in heaven only, would not be a High Priest if He were still upon earth (Hebrews 8:4), and is only expected from heaven upon the clouds on the last day, then Christ is not physically present in the Lord’s Supper, and one can thus not eat Him physically with his physical mouth. Or else one must maintain that those texts all pertain to His visible rather than invisible presence. This is a futile argument, for Christ’s body cannot invisibly be present elsewhere. It also conflicts with all the expressions of Christ pertaining to His departure and return.
Thirdly, it is furthermore evident from the nature and the objective of the sacrament. It is a sacrament of nourishment, for it is partaken of by way of eating and drinking. However, the objective is to feed the soul, and not the body. The nature of the nourishment is consistent with the manner in which it nourishes. Christ’s natural flesh and blood are physical, and if it were indeed eaten and drunk with the physical mouth, it could not do otherwise than feed the body, and it could in no wise penetrate to nourish the soul, which is a spirit. It is the nourishment and strengthening of the soul which is the objective here -- not in reference to the essence of the soul, but rather as far as faith and comfort are concerned. The Lord Jesus speaks extensively of this spiritual nourishment of the soul in John 6:1-71, which the Jews interpret in a carnal sense by saying in verse 52, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Christ, however, refutes them by saying that He did not speak of His physical flesh, but of the spiritual nourishment of the soul. “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). It is evident from verse 35 that He did not speak of physical eating with the physical mouth, but of spiritual eating by faith. “He that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst.” Thus, this entire chapter speaks of spiritual communion with Christ by faith unto the strengthening of spiritual life, and not at all of the Lord’s Supper, which had not been instituted at that time.
Fourthly, opposing parties refute themselves when they maintain that to eat physically only without eating spiritually by faith as well, is not only of no benefit, but is also harmful and of a damning nature. Therefore to have eaten Christ’s body with the physical mouth is no nourishment for the soul; only spiritual eating by faith nourishes the soul.
Fifthly, this practice mentioned is the most bestial, unspiritual, and abominable idolatry. God, believers, and all who are not wilfully blind, hate and reject it as a loathsome practice. For the holy and glorious body of the beloved Jesus -- and if one were to believe them, Christ as God and man is placed in the unclean mouth of a sinner -- is eaten, swallowed, brought into a defiled stomach, digested, and secretly excreted; the ungodly tear it to pieces, and dogs, rats, and mice eat it. Let him who loves Jesus beware of such an abomination.
Sixthly, it inverts the entire nature of the body, proposing the existence of a body without size, dimensions, spatial restrictions, and the occupation of location. It furthermore proposes the existence of a body which is invisible, intangible, penetrating other bodies while being penetrated by other bodies in turn -- yes, by being simultaneously visible and invisible, infinite and finite, and in a glorious state as well as being broken and eaten. All of this must be admitted if one adheres to Christ’s physical presence and the physical eating of Him in the Lord’s Supper. It is an error which a heathen will be able to refute, of which all rational men could be convinced within themselves, and which they themselves would reject if they used their reason and believed the Scriptures.
One will appeal in vain to the omnipotence of God if he wishes to make truth out of a lie, for God’s revealed will is silent on the matter.
Evasive Argument: Christ entered the house when the doors were closed (John 20:19). He thus penetrated a door.
Answer: Mention is made of both the time when Christ entered, as well as of His unexpected entry; however, no mention is made of His penetrating the door with His body. Everything must fall away and yield when Jesus wishes to gain entrance. He therefore does not need to bypass the ordained order of nature, nor does He have to make “no” and “yes” to be simultaneously true. When He willed to exit the grave, He did not need to penetrate the stone; He had angels who rolled it away for Him. When He traversed through the heavens (Hebrews 4:14) the thin air had to yield for the more solid substance of His body -- this occurs daily when an object moves from one place to the other. When it is said of Christ that He departed out of their sight (Luke 24:31), this does not intimate a disappearance or His becoming invisible, but rather, a sudden and rapid departure out of their presence. The Worship of the Wafer: An Abominable Heresy
Having refuted transubstantiation, the following most idolatrous error of the Papists is at once invalidated, namely, that a consecrated or blessed wafer over which the five words “for this is My body” have been pronounced, must, as the true God, be worshiped with religious honor. The Papists make a distinction between douleia and latreia. They worship angels and deceased men with douleia; however, no one may be worshiped with latreia, except the one, true, and eternal God. They maintain, therefore, that the wafer must be worshiped with latreia, that is, with the highest form of religious expression, of which the only true God alone is worthy, since the wafer is no longer bread, but the body of Christ united with the Godhead, and thus God Himself. An ignorant person may think that one would do them an injustice by ascribing such ungodly sentiments to them. The Papists are, however, known for this, want this to be known, and confess and defend it with all their might. Yes, they maintain that it is not sufficient if one worships the wafer in his heart. Rather, one must worship it with the deepest external humiliation and reverence, bowing the knees, folding the hands, removing the hat, etc. This is not only required in the church when the celebrant of the mass lifts the wafer above his head, but also when it is placed in a small enclosure and carried over the streets to the sick. This is especially true on their sacramental day, when the wafer with much pomp is carried about the streets, and also when the wafer at a special occasion is publicly put on display.
We maintain that Christ, being the one, eternal, and true God, must be worshiped, and that believers, during the administration of the Lord’s Supper and upon use of the signs and seals, must also lift their hearts to Christ in heaven while eating and drinking; unite themselves by faith with Him; honor, worship, thank, and surrender themselves to Him in order to serve and entrust themselves to Him. We furthermore maintain that one must acknowledge, appreciate, esteem, and value the external signs of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper as signs of Christ’s crucified body and shed blood, always distinguishing between the sign and the matter signified. However, we abhor with the highest indignation the worship of the wafer, and therefore let everyone who values his salvation abstain from this most abominable idolatry for the following reasons:
First, the wafer is not God nor is it Christ’s body; it is but a piece of bread, or some bread dough. This we have proven above and have answered the objections. Since, therefore, the wafer is not God, one may also not worship it, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve” (Matthew 4:10).
Secondly, in the entire Word of God there is neither a command, example, nor the least semblance of the practice of worshiping the bread of the Lord’s Supper. Everyone will have to acknowledge that the worship of the wafer is a matter of the greatest significance upon which the salvation of man hinges, for idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:10). Since the worship of the wafer is the entire pith of popish religion, everyone must be convinced that it is a matter of the greatest import; for a matter which is the foundation of an entire religion, and is a daily activity, must be commanded in God’s Word with utmost clarity, and one ought not to engage in this without an express command. However, there is neither a word, trace, nor example of this practice to be found in God’s Word -- which the Papists themselves know and until now they have not been able to produce one text. Furthermore, since the time of the apostles as well as all the hundreds of years afterwards, the church did not know of the practice of worshiping the wafer. It is thus clear that one must reject the practice of worshiping the wafer as an accursed idolatry (which it is), and desist from founding his salvation upon it.
Thirdly, according to their own opinion, they are always in danger of committing idolatry and of worshiping that which is not God. They themselves maintain that if the priest celebrating the mass is not baptized, then all consecration is nullified, the bread has not been changed into Christ’s body, and the wafer is not God. Furthermore, the priest celebrating the mass is not baptized if he was baptized by one who was not baptized; if this priest then in turn had not been baptized ... and so it goes on. Even if he had received the water, and either the one who baptized him or someone down the line did not baptize with the right intent, the baptism would be null and void, which would be true for the consecration as well. Also, if it were not the priest’s objective to change the bread into the body of Christ, then the consecration would be null and void and the bread did not become the body of Christ. Furthermore, if he were to omit one of those five words or if he were to add one word, the consecration is null and void -- and there are more such conditions. Who, however, can be assured with a divine assurance that all the conditions in the consecration have been observed? Someone, even if he worships the wafer with the utmost reverence, would then worship ignorantly, and if the wafer by reason of their proposition is not God, he commits the most blatant idolatry by worshiping a piece of bread as his God. Would they be excused by saying, “I worship Thee if Thou art God”? It is an abomination to worship something as God upon the condition that it is God; one must know what one worships. Let them then worship every tree -- yes, even an animal -- upon that condition, saying, “I worship Thee if Thou art God,” and then let them perceive in the day of judgment whether or not they have been idolaters. He who therefore wishes to be saved, let him abstain from worshiping the wafer, for it is not God, and according to their own propositions no one can assure you that it is God.
Fourthly, never has a more bestial religion been contrived, which worships a wafer as God, encloses God in a case, allowing Him to be observed through a window in the front, carries God about and then puts Him down again at His proper place, and carefully preserves God so that dogs, rats, and mice will not find Him and eat Him. Even after they have preserved and worshiped their God long enough, He must then succumb at last and be eaten by them. The Papists will acknowledge all this to be true, and yet they are nevertheless so foolish that they cannot perceive that they are committing idolatry -- albeit that the wise among them acknowledge that, if the wafer is not God, they are then the worst idolaters of the world. Many among them no longer believe in transubstantiation and deem all this to be but ceremonial; they observe it so that they do not give offense or do not suffer. For the sake of personal salvation let everyone therefore abstain from this abomination. And what can they bring forth in support of this their idolatry? Indeed, they can neither find one single Scripture passage, nor an example of the apostles or from the early church. However, in spite of this they advance the following objections:
Objection #1: It is written, “This is My body.”
Answer (1) Even if this referred to Christ’s natural body, it is not written, “Thou shalt worship it”; this is the point of contention. One may not worship the crucified body of Christ, for the flesh and blood of Christ are not God.
(2) Furthermore, the wafer -- as has been demonstrated above -- is not the body of Christ at all. This is therefore entirely erroneous.
Objection #2: One must worship God wherever He is. Since He is in the host or the wafer, one must also worship Him as such.
Answer (1) One must worship God who is omnipresent; however, not in relation to and as reflected in God’s presence in all creatures. Otherwise one would have to kneel before every tree and worship God in that tree, God being present in that tree.
(2) They are not satisfied to worship God as being in the wafer, considering He is in everything, but they insist that the wafer itself be worshiped since, in their opinion, it is God. Their argument is thus not watertight and the wafer is not God.
(3) But, say they, all must be worshiped in which God is to be found; this, however, we deny and they must deny it with us. God is in every tree and God dwells in a believer as in a temple. Who would be so foolish as to say that one therefore ought to worship every tree and every believer? The Lord Jesus was in the grave; ought one therefore to worship the grave? The Lord Jesus is in heaven; ought one therefore to worship heaven? Therefore, even if Christ were in the wafer, one ought not to worship the wafer. It thus remains certain that it is idolatrous to worship the wafer. The Popish Mass is Not a Sacrifice of Christ
Transubstantiation having been eradicated, the entire proposition of the popish mass being a sacrifice has been eradicated as well. This will become all the more evident when we deal with the following question:
Question: Is the Lord’s Supper a new, true, and external sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood in the literal sense of the word, and thus a sacrifice unto God of the entire Christ -- that is, God and man -- for the forgiveness of sins of the living and the dead?
Answer: The Papists not only maintain that there is a symbolic and applicatory sacrifice, but that it is even an atoning sacrifice, so that the living and the dead cannot have the forgiveness of sins by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross unless Christ is yet daily sacrificed in the mass.
We do maintain that prayer and thanksgiving must daily be offered -- apart from and during the use of the Lord’s Supper. This the apostle calls the offering of praise. “By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually” (Hebrews 13:15). We deny, however, with the greatest indignation that this sacrifice is a sacrifice of Christ to God for the forgiveness of sins of the living and the dead. This we shall prove as follows: It is a certainty that God has caused the entire scope of religion to be recorded in His Word -- and particularly the most significant points of the faith. One must therefore serve God according to His revealed will only, and all religious practice which God has not commanded must therefore be rejected as contrivances of men. “But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9). However, God’s Word does not speak one word of a new, repeated, or continual sacrifice of Christ being made unto God subsequent to His finished sacrifice on the cross. It is not stated elsewhere, nor is it included in the institutional formula of the Lord’s Supper (cf. Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23
Evasive Argument: This is a symbolic and applicatory sacrifice.
Answer: The one sacrifice cannot be symbolized by another sacrifice which differs from this sacrifice to a far greater degree than in relationship and typification only. The Papists are not satisfied, however, with symbolism and application only. They insist that it be an atoning sacrifice -- yes, that it is essentially the same sacrifice which was accomplished on the cross, except that the manner of sacrifice differs. Thus, in essence sin had already been paid for that evening when Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper and gave His disciples the bread and the wine. It is very evident, however, that at the institution of the Lord’s Supper no mention is made (nor is there the least semblance of this) that Christ sacrificed Himself at that moment, nor that He gave command that He be daily sacrificed until the end of the world. On the contrary, it is obvious that this is not true.
Proof #1: Christ has been sacrificed but once, and this one sacrifice is perfect in its efficacy to remove all sin; therefore a daily sacrifice for sin can no longer be made. “Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin” (Hebrews 10:18). It is evident from the following texts -- which cannot be subjected to argumentation -- that Christ has been sacrificed but once and that this one sacrifice is perfectly atoning in nature: “Who needeth not daily ... for this He did once, when He offered up Himself” (Hebrews 7:27); “Nor yet that He should offer himself often. ... 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. 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” (Hebrews 9:25-28); “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. But this man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; for by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (Hebrews 10:10
Evasive Argument: These texts refer to Christ’s atoning sacrifice and not to His symbolic, applicatory, and unbloody sacrifice, which is daily performed in the mass.
Answer (1) If this sacrifice is but symbolic, applicatory, and unbloody, it is certain that the sacrifice of the mass is a different sacrifice from the one which Christ accomplished on the cross.
(2) Scripture knows of no other sacrifice of Christ except that one, and therefore to speak of a symbolic, applicatory, and unbloody sacrifice is but trifling outside of the Word of God. It conflicts with the matter itself -- for a sacrifice is made toward God and an application, man-ward.
(3) Furthermore, they are not satisfied with a symbolic and applicatory sacrifice only, but maintain expressly that their mass is an atoning sacrifice, whereas the texts say that the perfectly atoning sacrifice of Christ did transpire but once, and can only transpire once -- for Christ would then have to suffer as frequently as He would be sacrificed. Therefore, these texts irresistibly refute the sacrifice in the mass.
(4) Also, is the symbolic and applicatory sacrifice of Christ in the mass a true sacrifice, or is it only a symbol of the sacrifice of Christ, depicting it? They maintain that it is a true sacrifice -- and if it is a true sacrifice, then it is a literal sacrifice and therefore identical to the sacrifice which Christ accomplished on the cross. Else it is either a new or different sacrifice, or a repetition of it. No matter how one looks at it, if in the mass there is a true, literal sacrifice of Christ for the purpose of making atonement, this causes Christ to yet suffer daily (Hebrews 9:27), while denying the perfect atoning sacrifice of Christ.
Evasive Argument #2: It is in essence the same sacrifice; however, they differ in the manner in which they are performed. Therefore the texts just mentioned are not opposed to the sacrifice in the mass, but speak of the mass itself; the sacrifice in the mass is none other than the same sacrifice which was made on the cross.
Answer (1) If the mass represents the same sacrifice which occurred on the cross, Christ still suffers and dies daily, be it in a continual or repetitious sense, for Christ suffered and died on the cross. Furthermore, the suffering and death which is repeated cannot be the same as that which occurred prior to that.
(2) If it is the same sacrifice, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was not perfect, for it was not yet finished -- it yet continues and must daily be performed.
(3) Even if there were a sacrifice in the mass (which, however, is erroneous), it is not the same sacrifice. It cannot be the same sacrifice which Christ performed on the cross, for it differs from this sacrifice in every respect.
First of all, there is a difference as far as the priest is concerned. On the cross Christ was the Priest in person and He sacrificed Himself. In the mass, however, a man who calls himself a priest sacrifices Christ, and that for someone else. Therefore this sacrifice cannot give satisfaction because satisfaction receives its efficacy from Christ’s high priestly office, in that He offers Himself.
Secondly, the altar differs; it is the altar which sanctifies the sacrifice (Matthew 23:19). “Christ Himself is the altar who by His eternal Spirit has offered himself without spot to God” (Hebrews 9:14; cf. Hebrews 13:10). The mass makes use of a table of wood or stone. Furthermore, they maintain that the cross was Christ’s altar, which is thus different from theirs.
Thirdly, the sacrifice and the manner of sacrifice differ. On the cross the body and blood of Christ were broken and shed with much sorrow, this being the essence of a sacrifice which would atone for sin. However, they admit that in the mass, even though Christ is present in His Person, there is not even sorrow, nor the breaking of His body, nor the shedding of His blood. Therefore, this sacrifice not only differs in the manner in which it was performed, but also in essence. We speak here assumptively, for the body of Christ is not present in the mass.
Fourthly, they differ in location. Christ’s sacrifice occurred at Golgotha, and it did not occur simultaneously in many other places -- that is, outside of that place. The mass is not performed at Golgotha, but simultaneously in thousands of different localities.
Fifthly, they differ chronologically. Christ’s sacrifice, of which He said that it was finished, has been accomplished for many hundreds of years already; the mass, however, occurs daily.
Sixthly, they differ in efficacy, for Christ’s sacrifice was atoning in nature -- this was true for the sins which had been committed in the Old Testament from the beginning of the world, as well as for those sins which have been committed in the New Testament. A mass, however, does not have sufficient efficacy to atone for sin. The mass itself lacks the efficacy to bring about the forgiveness of a man’s sins. Sometimes, if a person has been rich in his life, a thousand masses are celebrated to help one soul escape purgatory. From all this it is evident to all rational persons (however unintelligent they may be) that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and the sacrifice which one fabricates in the mass are not one and the same. Thus, the quoted texts remain fully in force and prove that the mass is not an atoning sacrifice.
Proof #2: Everything which belongs to a sacrifice is lacking in the mass, and thus there is no sacrifice in the mass. Everyone will agree that the following belongs to a sacrifice: a priest, an altar, visible and tangible sacrifices, and the disintegration and annihilation of the sacrifice. None of these are present in the mass.
First, there are no priests present at the mass, albeit that all believers are indeed spiritual priests (cf. 1 Peter 2:5
(1) They themselves also know this, and they therefore cannot produce a single text by which they can prove the use of such a title. Where is Peter, Paul, any apostle, or any minister called a priest? Who of them has referred to himself as a priest?
(2) When the apostles enumerate the ministries of the New Testament, they do not place the priesthood among them. “And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-12). Would they then not have mentioned the priesthood as being the most significant ministry, if it indeed existed?
(3) If their clergymen were to be priests, they must either be priests according to the order of Aaron, or according to the order of Melchizedek. They are not priests according to the order of Aaron, for they are neither descendants of Jews nor of the tribe of Levi. They are also not priests according to the order of Melchizedek, for only Christ is a priest according to this order. “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Psalms 110:4). Christ has no successors in His priestly ministry, for He lives forever and will always remain Priest. “And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because He continueth ever, hath an unchangeable (Greek: without succession) priesthood” (Hebrews 7:23-24). It is thus evident that they also cannot be priests according to the order of Melchizedek -- and if they nevertheless insist on this, they must prove their order, which is impossible. And if they are yet priests in spite of this, albeit neither according to the order of Aaron, nor according to the order of Melchizedek, they must be either priests of Baal or priests of Jupiter (Acts 14:13) -- which we shall not deny them.
(4) Even if we assume that they are priests, they could nevertheless not sacrifice Christ Himself, for no priest has ever presumed to do this. Priests sacrificed something which typified Christ, but not Christ Himself. Therefore at best they would be sacrificing something which is a reflection of Christ, but not Christ Himself. None other than Christ can sacrifice Himself.
Secondly, in the New Testament there are no literal altars consisting of physical matter. The Lord Jesus says that the altar is more than the sacrifice, for it sanctifies the sacrifice (cf. Matthew 23:18-19). None of the Papists would dare to say, however, that their altars are superior to Christ, and that they sanctify Christ and cause the sacrifice of Christ to be pleasing before God; and thus they have no altar.
Evasive Argument: “We have an altar” (Hebrews 13:10).
Answer (1) Here mention is made of one, but the Papists have thousands of altars.
(2) This one altar is Christ Himself upon which we sacrifice a “sacrifice of praise” (Hebrews 13:15). This is also true in Revelation 6:9 : “I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God” (Revelation 6:9). This altar is Christ who is their altar and their atoning sacrifice, and it is He who overshadows and refreshes them.
Thirdly, the Papists also do not have an external sacrifice, for bread and wine are no longer present. It is gone (so they say) and Christ’s body is not present. Even if it were present, it is nevertheless not visible -- which they themselves admit -- and thus there is no external and visible sacrifice. The appearance of bread is indeed visible, but not the appearance of the sacrifice, and that which appears as visible is not the sacrifice.
Fourthly, according to their own words, Christ’s body is also not broken. They maintain that the breaking of the wafer does not break the body of Christ; rather, Christ is and remains whole in every piece of the wafer. They also do not believe that the blood of Christ is shed, albeit that it runs from the cup into the mouth of the priest and is swallowed by him; instead, they call it an unbloody sacrifice. They thus confuse themselves and the one thing contradicts the other. Where there is no breaking of the sacrifice, accompanied with sorrow and death, there is no payment for sin; the wages of which is death. Likewise, where there is no shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness: “... and without shedding of blood is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22). From that which has been said it is therefore evident that in the mass there is neither a priest, an altar, an external and visible sacrifice, the breaking of the sacrifice, nor the shedding of blood. Consequently it is certain that there is no sacrifice.
Objection #1: Melchizedek was a type of Christ, and he sacrificed bread and wine. “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God” (Genesis 14:18).
Answer (1) What proof does this yield that popish priests are priests indeed, and that these priests sacrifice Christ unto the forgiveness of sins? Who will be able to tie these ends together? It is true that Melchizedek was a priest, and it is also true that Melchizedek was a type of Christ. Now what? The argument that he is thus an example for the popish priests is not valid. “Yes, but he offered bread and wine.” What does that prove? Does it therefore follow that the popish priests also offer bread and wine? That would be the most logical argument if one were to draw a conclusion on the basis of this; however, they deny that they offer bread and wine -- they maintain that they sacrifice Christ. This argument is therefore neither coherent, nor is it valid.
(2) Melchizedek, the king of Salem, was indeed priest and gave bread and wine to Abraham and to his people as a refreshment; however, he did not sacrifice bread and wine unto God in like manner as all other sacrifices are made unto God. He also was not a type of Christ as far as the bringing forth of bread and wine are concerned. The apostle in explaining the application of Melchizedek as type and Christ as antitype (Hebrews 7:17), makes no mention of bringing forth bread and wine, but he establishes a relationship in reference to other matters; he also did not do this as priest.
Objection #2: The Passover was a type of Christ who is therefore called the Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7). The Passover was a sacrifice and thus also Christ our Passover must be sacrificed.
Answer (1) In the sacrifice of the passover Christ Himself was not literally sacrificed, but rather a lamb as a type of Christ.
(2) We cannot conclude that since Christ was typified in the sacrifices of the Old Testament, He must therefore also be represented in sacrifices by way of antitype; the contrary is true. If Christ was typified in the Old Testament by way of a sacrifice, He must no longer be typified in a sacrifice, since all shadows and types have ended in Him and are fulfilled in Him.
(3) There is also no relationship between the sacrifice of the Passover and the sacrifice in the mass. In the Passover there was a visible sacrifice; in the mass the sacrifice is invisible. In the Passover Christ Himself was not sacrificed, whereas this is held to be true in the mass. In the Passover no bone was permitted to be broken, whereas in the mass the wafer is broken. These matters are too distinctly different to enable anyone to draw a parallel between them.
Objection #3: There are many prophecies which say that there still would be priests, altars, and sacrifices in the New Testament. “Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation” (Isaiah 19:21); “And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 66:21); “And in every place incense shall be offered unto My name, and a pure offering” (Malachi 1:11).
Answer: (1) It is common in God’s Word to express spiritual religion in the New Testament by way of terminology pertaining to the religion of the Old Testament. Instead of quoting many texts, consider the following: “... present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God” (Romans 12:1); “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus” (Hebrews 10:19). Believers are thus called God’s temple (1 Corinthians 3:16), a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5). This is also repeatedly true in Revelation.
(2) The quoted texts themselves indicate that there is nothing in support of the sacrifice of the mass, but that they speak of the spiritual service of the New Testament -- for they speak of an offering, of Levites, and of incense.
Objection #4: “This do in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19). With these words Christ appointed the apostles as priests and commanded them to sacrifice His body, as He did.
Answer (1) There is not a semblance of a reference to priests, sacrifices, and the sacrifice of His body; therefore as quickly as this objection is raised, so quickly is it refuted.
(2) Christ did not sacrifice Himself at that time and He did not command them to do so.
(3) Christ commanded them to eat and to drink in remembrance of Him, to pass this sacrament on to the church, and cause it to be used by them.
Objection #5: “As they ministered to the Lord” (Acts 13:2). In the Greek text it reads leitourgein which means: to celebrate the mass.
Answer: This word means “to serve” in a general sense; it is used to denote the angels as ministering spirits (Hebrews 1:14), and governments as servants of God (Romans 13:6); it also means to give alms (2 Corinthians 9:12; Romans 15:27). Here there is also no support for the nauseating mass. [Note: In the Dutch it reads, “de misselijke mis,” which is an obvious play on words.]
We have thus exposed the abominable idolatry of anti-Christianity. How correctly did our forefathers act when, upon the command of the Lord, they departed from the mother of harlots, that great Babylon, and went out from her, so that they would neither be partakers of her sin nor receive any of her plagues! They thus permitted it to become a habitation of devils, the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird (Revelation 18:2-4)! The Attending Circumstances of the Lord’s Supper
Having considered the nature of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, it remains to consider some of the attending circumstances: to whom, at which localities, in what manner, and at what time the Lord’s Supper must be administered.
(1) The Lord’s Supper must not be administered for the dead, for they have already reached the destination where they will forever be. If they are in heaven, they possess the matter in its fullness, and thus a seal is not necessary. If they are in hell, they have no promises, and thus also no seal of them. Purgatory is but a fabrication to raise money. The sacrifice in the mass for the benefit of the dead renders them as much refreshment as there is pain in purgatory.
(2) It must not be administered to those who are dying and who are in the agony of death, for they are not capable of uniting by faith the sign with the matter signified and applying it to themselves as a seal. The illusion that one thus infuses Christ into them, and that they thus die in and with Him and therefore most certainly are saved, is as true as the fable of purgatory.
(3) It must also not be administered to children, since they are not able to examine themselves and to make a believing application by means of the sacrament.
(4) Neither may it be administered to the unbaptized, for no one can eat unless they first be born. Also, no one can partake of a meal together with the church unless he first be in the church, has been received as a member of her, and has been sealed as such.
(5) It must also not be administered to those who are ignorant of true doctrine, to unbelievers, and to those outside of the church -- be it that they have never belonged to the church or that they have been excommunicated. This must be enforced as long as they are in this condition, since they are not partakers of the promises, of Christ, nor of the communion of saints.
Rather, it must be administered to true believers. Only true believers have a right for themselves to the promises, Christ, and the communion of saints, and thus also to the signs of the covenant. The church, however, does not judge concerning man’s internal state; the knowledge of someone’s regeneration is not the basis upon which she admits persons to the holy table, but she admits all who have made a conscious confession of the true doctrine of the gospel, and who lead a life which is in harmony with their confession. The location where this sacrament is administered does not relate to its essence, and is therefore immaterial. It does not matter if it is a public meeting place -- called “church” -- or if it is a private home, mountain, valley, or cave. One must adjust himself to the condition of the church; that is, whether she be in a state of freedom or in a state of persecution. It must, however, occur in the gathering of the congregation, regardless of whether she be great or small. The bringing of the Lord’s Supper to the sick borders on superstition. The secret celebration of the Lord’s Supper with a few members of the congregation in a secret home is nothing less than schism. The gestures or the external manner of administration of this sacrament must be such as most closely resembles the first Lord’s Supper administered by Christ, as well as the administration of the Lord’s Supper by the apostles and the apostolic churches as recorded in the Holy Scriptures. Then the Lord’s Supper was administered while seated at a table. Since it is a meal, it is therefore proper that it be administered in such a manner as one would serve either common or special meals. To come, one by one, to that which one calls an altar, to there receive the bread out of the hand of the celebrant -- who time and again takes it from the altar and gives it to the communicant -- to there receive it while kneeling, and to let it be put into his mouth, is superstitious and gives occasion for superstition. To use the sacrament standing and while passing the table is not as edifying. It also does not agree as fully with the first administration as does sitting at the table -- be it that the minister gives the bread and the cup to each person one by one, or be it that he breaks the bread and puts it upon dishes which he passes on to those guests who are partaking, subsequently giving the cup to be passed on from hand to hand.
Both time and frequency cannot be determined and it is of no relevance as far as the essence of the sacrament is concerned. It is most desirable that it be administered upon the Sabbath Day when the congregation gathers, as well as at such a time when one would normally eat a meal, so that as a result of the physical desire for food, one would be that much more fit to partake of this spiritual food symbolized by the bread and wine. Christ instituted it in the evening, since He could not do so any earlier due to the last Passover having to be eaten in the evening. He also could not have instituted it at a later moment since His suffering began during that same night. We have thus considered this sacrament in its nature and attending circumstances. The observance of this sacrament will be considered in the next chapter.