We have seen that there is no such teaching in the word of God, either that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are the true, literal body and blood of Christ, or that the Lord’s supper is a true sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead; that when the Lord said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:53, 5453Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:53‑54)), this could no more be understood literally His flesh and blood, than when He said, “Except a man be born again,” &c., or when He said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven.” In every such case the words cannot be intended to be understood literally, but figuratively. We must admit it is impossible for these statements to be true in a literal sense. Could Christ be a rock of stone, and at the same time a piece of paste, or bread? and at the same time a vine, &c.? And if He were bread, the priest could not change bread into bread. It is amazing that the mind of man should be so dark as to pervert these precious scriptures in such a literal manner.
But has not the church always held these doctrines as now held by Rome, and being introduced into the Church of England by the clergy? Have we not the unanimous consent of the Fathers that the bread is changed into the body and blood of Christ? and also that it is offered a true sacrifice for sins?
We challenge the most searching examination of scripture to find the least evidence that either the church in the beginning, or the apostles, held either of these doctrines. After the blessing the bread is still called bread, and the wine is still called the fruit of the vine. And as to all the pretensions of the Mass being a sacrifice for sins, there is not only not such a thought, but it is utterly impossible, and utterly unneeded. The conscience of the believer is purged from sins, and perfected forever, by the one offering of Christ, and there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins—there needs no other—the Holy Ghost bears witness. “And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin” (Heb. 10:17, 8817And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. (Hebrews 10:17)). “There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” (v. 26). Far be it from us to appeal to what is called the church—that is, the clergy—or to the Fathers, for authority. God speaks to us in His word, “There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” He assures us He will remember our sins no more. It is enough, our souls can rest in perfect repose, believing the word of God.
An honest inquiry, however, will convince any one who can examine the Fathers, so called, that the pretended consent of the Fathers to these doctrines is utterly false. We would not for a moment refer to the Fathers to establish any doctrine, but merely to show from history that transubstantiation, or the change of the elements into the true body, blood, &c., of Christ was not the doctrine of the early church.
Many passages have been misquoted, and sentences may be taken from their contexts, and made to mean the opposite of the context, but others which have not been tampered with are sufficiently clear. Take this from Origen on John 6: “Acknowledge some things which are written in the inspired volume to be figures, and therefore as spiritual, and not carnal, persons examine and understand what is said; for if as carnal persons you understand them, they injure, and do not nourish you. For there is in the Gospels also a letter which kills; a killing letter is not found in the Old Testament alone. There is also in the New Testament a letter which kills him who does not understand spiritually the things which are spoken. For if, according to the letter, thou followest the very thing which is said, “Except ye, eat my flesh, and drink my blood,” this letter kills (John 6:5454Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:54)).—R. Pope’s “Roman Misquotations,” p. 120.” Now it is evident that Origen not only understood these words spiritually and figuratively, but he does not seem to be aware of any that read them literally, as he only supposes the case. Tertullian, in writing against the Marcionites (v. 40), says: “Having taken bread, and distributed it to His disciples, He made that His body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. But it could not have been a figure unless the body had been a truth.” This was a striking argument against those who denied that Christ had a real body. The bread could not be a figure of His body if He had not one. Nothing could more clearly explain what the Fathers meant when they spoke of the bread being made the body: they evidently meant it was made a figure of it. But is it not most certain that Tertullian never held the doctrine of the bread being changed into the real body of Christ? It could not be the figure of a thing and the very thing itself. A living horse is not the figure of a horse.
In dialogs against the Marcionites—said to be Origen’s, but not certain: “But if, as they say, He was without flesh and blood, of what flesh and what body, or of what blood, giving both the bread and the cup as images, did He command His disciples to remember Him?” Now, whoever wrote these dialogs, they prove that, in those ancient days, both the bread and the cup were not understood or held to be the true body and blood of Christ, BUT ONLY THE IMAGES of the same, or figures; and that there was no thought of propitiatory sacrifices, but simply done in remembrance of Him.
Cyprian also speaks of it as done in remembrance: “That the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him, is offered mixed with wine. The blood of Christ is shown forth, which is preached by the sacrament and testimony of all scriptures. That it was wine which He called His blood.” He could not possibly speak thus, if He had believed the wine was really changed into the blood of Christ.
Cyril of Jerusalem also distinctly speaks of the bread and wine as figures of the spiritual truth, Christ received by the soul: “For in the figure of bread His body is given unto you, and in the figure of wine, His blood.” It is the unchanged bread and wine that are thus figures. (Cat. xxii., Myst. iii., iv.) Nothing could be plainer than the words of Theodoret (Dialog i., vol. iv). Pages might be quoted to show that he regarded the bread and wine as symbols of the body and blood, not real, as he compares them to the symbols of the vine, &c. He says, “Of what thinkest thou that all-holy food to be the symbol and figure—the divinity of Christ the Lord, or of His body and blood?” Could any person speak thus that believed the bread and wine were changed into the true real body and blood of Christ?
Augustine presses the fact, that, just as the “rock was Christ’s (sic),” so the Lord speaks of the sign of His body as “this is my body.” He insists on this—it does not say the rock signified Christ, it was Christ. In like manner He did not say, This signifies my body, but is my body; yet in both cases the figure was used for the thing signified. (See Can. Ad. xii. 5, &c.)
POPE Gelasius, A.D. 492, speaking of the Eucharist, says, “It does not cease to be the substance or nature of bread and wine, and certainly the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries...” Could anything be more clear than this? Here we have a pope teaching the exact opposite of the Council of Trent!! Procopius of Gaza: “For He gave the image of His own body to His disciples.” Clearly the image is not the thing of which it is an image. Eusebius is perfectly clear (Lib. i. 10. Paris, 1628). He speaks of daily celebrating the remembrance of His body and His blood. “Christ having offered for us all an offering and sacrifice, as slain, and given to us a memorial for [or instead of] a sacrifice, to offer continually to God. As, therefore, we have received to celebrate the memorial of this sacrifice on a table by SYMBOLS both of His body and His blood.” The doctrine of Eusebius was a memorial, instead of a propitiatory sacrifice—the modern doctrine of Rome, the exact opposite. He says further, “For by the wine, which is the symbol of His blood, those who are baptized to His death, and believe in His blood, are purged from their old evils,” and much of the same character. He clearly looked upon the bread and wine as symbols only.
Now we might go on quoting similar passages from the Fathers, and the Romanist might find others chiefly spurious, or interpolations, or, if he found some genuine passages which contradict the above, what would he prove? Why, just this -that there is no unanimous consent of the Fathers on this subject.
Ambrose is often quoted. Let it be noticed, however, that on the fundamental question of eternal redemption he is directly opposed to scripture. We are taught in Heb. 9, 10 that Christ by His own blood entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. “And without shedding of blood there is no remission.” That He is now in the presence of God for us. No need to offer Himself often, for then must He often have suffered. That He appeared once to put away sins by the sacrifice of Himself. That He was once offered to bear the sins of many. That by the will of God we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once—in contrast to the priests standing and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. Yes, in contrast with all this, Christ having offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God: and that the effect of this is, by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified, so that God says He will remember their sins no more. Now where, or since, remission of sins is so complete, “there is no more offering for sin.” Now read Heb. 9; 10, and say, is not this the distinct and blessed truth, foundation-truth of scripture? How completely this was lost, unknown, or denied by Ambrose, let his own words declare: “As often as we receive, we announce the Lord’s death. If we announce death, we announce remission of sins. If, as often as the blood is shed, it is shed for the remission of sins, I ought always to receive it, that my sins may be always forgiven. I who always sin, ought always to have the medicine” (Lib. iv., cap. 7, p. 372). We learn from scripture, through one sacrifice, never to be repeated, our sins are fully and forever forgiven. Ambrose says the very contrary, and implies that the blood of Christ has to be shed again every time he sins. Could anything be more contrary to the foundation-truth of the one sacrifice of the cross? Yet the whole doctrine of the Mass rests on the supposition that the atoning death of Christ was a failure, and therefore has to be repeated, or continued. It is, however, probable that these writings, said to be Ambrose’s, are not genuine; but still the Council of Trent founds its doctrine on them, and Roman Catholic writers quote them.
We give the passage as important, showing the distinct contrast and issue between truth and error, darkness and light: and it is remarkable, no Ritualist or Romanist can be found who believes Heb. 9; 10 In fact, if they did, instead of the falsehood of many sacrifices for sins, many sheddings of the blood of Christ, and, after all, unknown sufferings in purgatory, they would enjoy the abiding certainty that God would remember their sins no more; they would have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. The Church of Rome has no conception what she has lost in giving up the infinite value of the one sacrifice of Christ, and putting in its place the falsehood of the many sacrifices, which can never take away sins. Let it be also clearly understood that this is the one object of the ritualist movement. When we once pointed out the truth of Heb. 10 to a ritualist clergyman, he said it could not be true that the one sacrifice of Christ forever perfected the conscience, for, if that were the case, there could be no future judgment of the believer for his sins; so ignorant was he that that is just what the Lord Jesus declares. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:2424Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)). The believer is justified now from all things. There is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ—God will remember their sins no more. Has not our Substitute been judged in our place? We are washed in His blood. What is there left to judge? Then He who washed us from our sins is the judge. Will He condemn His own work? No, when He appears, we appear with Him (Col. 3:44When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. (Colossians 3:4)). We shall be like Him (1 John 3:22Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)). When He comes to judge others, we shall come with Him in glory (1 Thess. 3:13; 4:1413To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints. (1 Thessalonians 3:13)
14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. (1 Thessalonians 4:14); Jude 1414And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (Jude 14), 15). We can therefore look forward with joy and delight to meet the Lord in the air before He comes to judge (1 Thess. 4:15-1815For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18Wherefore comfort one another with these words. (1 Thessalonians 4:15‑18)). We can give thanks unto the Father, who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light... We have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins (Col. 1:12-1412Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (Colossians 1:12‑14)). But the false doctrine of the many sheddings of blood, or unbloody sacrifices, robs us of the whole of a bright and glorious Christianity. And then these men in darkness would tell us they are the church! It would be great humility to believe them, and be left in darkness and uncertainty; but it is great presumption to believe God, and enjoy the present and everlasting forgiveness of sins!
But we are getting away from the consent of the Fathers. No one can honestly read Augustine, but must admit that he utterly rejected the doctrine of the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and understood it spiritually, as all Christians do.
Fecundus, about the sixth century, says, “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, consecrated in the bread and wine, is said to be His body and His blood; not that His body be bread, or His blood wine, but because the bread and wine are the sacrament of His body and blood, and therefore so called by Christ when He gave them to His disciples.” Bede, in the eighth century, speaks of “the most sacred supper in which He delivered to His disciples the figure of His most holy body and blood.” We might go on giving quotations. If the reader would see how history proves that the doctrine of the corporeal presence was introduced into the west in the ninth century, and what conflict it caused, and how Berengarius resisted it, and stood for the ancient doctrine of the Fathers, that it was a figure, &c., we commend the tracts of the late J. N. D. (Darby) on the Mass and Transubstantiation. He will there also find the authorities for many of the above quotations. It is very difficult to ascertain what the Fathers did say, as they have been so mangled and altered, as may be seen in Pope’s “Roman Misquotations.” It is very easy to alter the whole meaning of a passage by adding a word or two. As an instance, Fulbert of Chartres, in his works published in Paris, referring to eating Christ’s flesh, says, “It seems to command a crime, or atrocity. It is therefore a figure, saith the heretic, commanding only communion with the passion of the Lord.” The words, “saith the heretic,” were not in the manuscript, but added by the publisher. Now read the sentence without them. The words were acknowledged afterward, in errata, to have been added. It might weary both writer and reader to follow the discussions and contentions in the Church of Rome on this subject. Berengarius was silenced, through fear, in the eleventh century, though he could certainly quote the great doctors in opposing the new doctrine of the real presence. It was not, however, until 1215 that it was received as a dogma by the church—by that very man, Innocent III., who established the Inquisition.
We do not profess to be able to read through these Fathers, nor do we possess them, but we give extracts from the writings of one who had them before him, and who diligently read them—now departed to be with the Lord he loved to serve—and as we write this, every extract could be verified in his library. R. Pope, A.M., also gives lengthy extracts from the Fathers, so that the context may be examined.
Every Roman Catholic writer should know, if he has read his own historians, that it is utterly false to say the church has always held the real presence in the Eucharist, or that it was a true propitiatory sacrifice for sins, continued, or repeated. We would, in conclusion, ask the reader, Can the Lord’s supper be possibly eucharistic to you? For what do you give thanks? We beg you will answer that question. Have you ever understood what the atoning sacrifice was? What His soul endured when made sin for us—when forsaken of God—that bitter cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” There, on the cross, His soul was made an offering for sin. Do you know the scriptures, that He said, “It is finished “? Do you know that God has accepted that one sacrifice, never to be repeated, and received Him up to glory? Do you know that that sacrifice is infinite and everlasting, in contrast to the sacrifices of the law, which had to be often repeated? Can you say, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood?” (Rev. 1:55And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (Revelation 1:5)). Can you sit at the Lord’s table, and give thanks because you have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins? Nothing on earth can be more blessed than thus to break bread, remembering Him.
The Mass is the denial of all this. It practically says the sacrifice of Christ is of no more value than the death of a goat. Since you sin again, it must be repeated. It says His work is not finished, but must be continued. It practically denies His resurrection and ascension to glory, for the same sacrifice is still continued. If so, He is still forsaken of God—made sin. Thus there is no Savior who hath delivered us from the wrath to come; there is no salvation possible, if Jesus is still beneath the wrath of God for sins. Your sins are not forgiven, if He is still on the cross, or a propitiatory sacrifice, it is clear, if He has not finished the work once for all. God cannot have raised Him up from the dead for our justification, and if He be not risen, ye are yet in your sins. Thus the Mass entirely destroys Christianity, and then calls itself Eucharist (thanksgiving).
Is it possible for man to go so far astray? Yes, and then call it the only true church! and then declare that these errors have been the truth held by the church in all ages. How thankful we ought to be for the scriptures! We can turn to them, and they at once declare that there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. Yes, in the light of scripture the Mass is seen to be a vast falsehood—a soul destroying falsehood. As a learned Hindoo (Hindu) observed, there is no idolatry like it on earth—to make a god of paste, to worship it as the true God, and then to eat him. Is not this the strong delusion of these last days? We would not dwell on the revolting discussions of the learned of Rome, as to what becomes of God if a mouse should eat Him; or what becomes of Christ in the sewer after the priest has eaten Him. Surely such thoughts are the lowest point of human degradation and darkness.
But what shall we say of the host of Ritualist clergymen, with the Bible in their hands, teaching these soul-destroying errors of Rome! In many a parish of Protestant England no prayer is more needed, than that God may be pleased to deliver them from the clergyman! Is it nothing that Christianity, the true doctrine of the one sacrifice once offered, should be supplanted by the many sacrifices that never can take away sins? If we walk in the dark, these many sacrifices will suit us; but, “if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (John 1:77The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. (John 1:7)).
Death is no more possible to Him, and sin is no more imputed to us.