29.2 Section II - VI

Section II.—In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once and for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the so-called sacrifice of the mass is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect. Section III.—The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation. Section IV.—Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; as likewise the denial of the cup to the people; worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ. Section V.—The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before. Section VI.—That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called Transubstantiation), by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.

Exposition In these sections certain dangerous errors and superstitious practices of the Church of Rome are condemned; and we have placed all these sections together, that we may include the leading error, called transubstantiation, which has given rise to the absurd doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, and the various other tenets and practices here rejected.

I. The Church of Rome holds that the words, "This is my body," and, "This is my blood," are to be understood in their most literal sense; and that the priest, by pronouncing these words, with a good intention, changes the substance of the bread and wine into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ; which change is known by the name of transubstantiation. This doctrine receives no support from Scripture, but is founded on a gross perversion of its language. The words, "This is my body," and, "This is my blood", were manifestly used by our Saviour in a figurative sense; and must have been so understood by the apostles, to whom they were immediately addressed. Such figurative expressions are of frequent occurrence in Scripture. No one supposes that, when our Lord said, "I am the vine," "I am the way," "I am the door," he meant us to understand that he is literally a vine, a way, and a door; and no satisfactory reason can be assigned for understanding the words of institution in a literal sense. Our Saviour plainly meant that the bread and wine signify or represent his body and blood; and nothing is more common in Scripture than to affix to a type or symbol the name of the thing signified by it; thus circumcision is called God’s covenant (Gen. xvii. 10); the paschal lamb, the Passover (Exod. xii. 11); and the smitten rock, Christ.—1 Cor. x. 4. But, not only is the doctrine of transubstantiation destitute of any support from the inspired writings, it is repugnant to Scripture; for the Apostle Paul gives to the elements after blessing the very same names they had before it; which certainly intimates that there is no change of their substance.—1 Cor. xi. 26, 28. It is also contradicted by our senses; for we see and taste that the bread and wine after blessing, and when we actually receive them, still continue to be bread and wine, without any change or alteration whatever. It is equally repugnant to reason; for this tells us that Christ’s body cannot be both in heaven and on earth at the same time; but according to the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation, though the body of Christ remains in heaven, it is also present, not in one place on earth only, but in a thousand places—wherever the priest has, with a good intention, pronounced the words of institution. This doctrine likewise overthrows the nature of the sacrament. Two things are necessary to a sacrament—a sign and a thing signified—an object presented to our senses, and some promised blessing which is represented and sealed by it. But by transubstantiation the sign is annihilated, and the thing signified is put in its place.

Transubstantiation is not only contrary to Scripture, and reason, and common sense, but it has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries. In the fourth section, several of these superstitious and idolatrous practices are specified. Conceiving that the bread and wine are changed into the real body and blood of Christ, Papists reserve part of the consecrated wafers, for the purpose of giving them to the sick, or other absent persons, at some future time. In direct opposition to the command of Christ, "Drink ye all of it," they deny the cup to the people; on the pretence that, as the bread is changed into the body of Christ, they partake, by concomitance, of the blood together with the body. When the priest is supposed to have changed the bread into the body of Christ, he adores it with bonded knee, and rising, lifts it up, that it may be seen and adored by the people which is called the elevation of the host; it is also carried about in solemn procession, that it may receive the homage of all who meet it; and, in short, it is worshipped as if it were Christ himself. All these practices are declared by our Confession to be "contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ." They were unknown in the primitive ages of the Church, and have evidently originated in the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation.

II. In the Church of Rome, the priest being supposed to have charged the bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ, it is also conceived that, in laying upon the altar what has been thus transubstantiated, he offers to God a sacrifice which, although it be distinguished from all others by being without the shedding of blood, is a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. This is called the sacrifice of the mass. As this is founded upon the doctrine of transubstantiation, if the one be unscriptural so must the other. But we may adduce a few of those pointed declarations of Scripture, by which this particular doctrine is refuted. "Once in the end of the world hath he appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." "Christ was once offered, to bear the sins of many." "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." "By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." - Heb. ix. 26, 28; x. 10,14. These texts, and they might easily be greatly multiplied, clearly prove that the one sacrifice of Christ, once offered by himself, is sufficient and perfect; and we are expressly told that "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."—Heb. x. 26. In the language of our Confession, therefore, "the Popish sacrifice of the mass is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice - the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect."

III. The right manner of dispensing the sacrament of the supper is here declared.

1. The minister is to read the word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use. In instituting this sacrament, according to the evangelist Matthew, "Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it." - Matt. xxvi. 26. Some have observed, that it is not necessary for us to understand this as signifying that Jesus blessed the bread, for the pronoun it is a supplement; and as the word rendered blessed sometimes means to give thanks, thanks, especially as the evangelist Luke employs the phrase, "he gave thanks," they conclude that the two expressions are in this case synonymous; and that we are to understand that Jesus blessed, not the bread, but God, or gave thanks to his Father. We are of opinion, however, that the pronoun it has been very properly introduced by our translators after the word bread, as it is unquestionably repeated with the utmost propriety after the word brake; and we conceive that the order of the words requires us to understand that Jesus blessed the bread. Nor is there any more difficulty in apprehending how Jesus blessed the bread, than in apprehending how God blessed the seventh or the Sabbath-day.—Gen. ii. 3, Exod. xx. 11. Indeed, the two cases are exactly analogous;—God blessed the seventh day by setting it apart to a holy use, or appointing it to be a day of sacred rest; Christ blessed the bread, by setting, it apart from a common to a holy use, or appointing it to be the visible symbol of his body. And while it belonged exclusively to Christ, as the Head of the Church, to appoint bread and wine to be the symbols of his body and blood, yet we are persuaded that the servants of Christ, in administering the Lord’s supper, are warranted, according to the institution and example of Christ, to set apart by solemn prayer so much of the elements as shall be used from a common to a holy use. That there is a sense in, which the servants of Christ may be said to bless the elements, seems plain from 1 Cor. x. 16, where Paul denominates the sacramental cup "The cup of blessing which we bless." It is not pretended that any real change is thereby made upon the elements, but only a relative change, so that they are not to be looked upon an common bread and wine, but as the sacred symbols of Christ’s body and blood.

2. The minister is also to take and break the bread. The breaking of the bread is an essential part of the ordinance, and, when it is wanting, the sacrament is not celebrated according to the original institution. It is, indeed, so essential, that the Lord’s supper is sometimes designated from it alone, the whole being denominated from a part. The "breaking of bread" is mentioned among the institutions of the gospel (Acts ii. 42); and in Acts xx. 7, we are told that, "upon the first day of the week, the disciples came together to break bread:" in both of which passages the celebration of the Lord’s supper is doubtless meant by the "breaking of bread." The rite is significant, and we are left in no doubt about the meaning of the action. Our Saviour himself explained it when he said, "This is my body, which is broken for you;" intimating that the broken bread is a figure of his body as wounded, bruised, and crucified, to make atonement for our sins. As an unbroken Christ could not profit sinners, so unbroken bread cannot fully represent to faith the food of the soul. Wherefore, to divide the bread into small pieces called wafers, and put a wafer into the mouth of each of the communicants, as is done in the Church of Rome, is grossly to corrupt this ordinance, for it takes away the significant action of breaking the bread.

3. The minister is further to take the cup, and give both the elements to the communicants. The cup, as well as the bread, is an essential element in this ordinance—the one representing the blood, and the other representing the body of Christ. To give both the elements to all the communicants, was the universal practice of the Church of God for about 1400 years; but the Church of Rome then departed from the primitive institution, and the practice of the ancient Church, by withholding the cup from the laity. The Council of Constance decreed, "that though Christ did administer this venerable sacrament to his disciples under both the kinds of bread and wine, yet notwithstanding this, the custom of communicating under one kind only is now to be taken for a law." And, "Though, in the primitive Church, this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds, yet, notwithstanding this, the custom that is introduced of communicating under one kind only for the laity is now to be taken for a law." The Council of Trent also declared, "That the laity, and the clergy not officiating, are not bound by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the eucharist under both kinds." "And further declares, that although our Redeemer in the last supper instituted this sacrament in two kinds, and so delivered it to the apostles, yet under one kind only, whole, and entire Christ and the true sacrament are taken; and that, therefore, those who receive only one kind are deprived of no grace necessary to salvation." The Church of Rome, it will be remarked, acknowledges both kinds, the bread and the wine, to have been instituted by Christ, and the ordinance to have been thus celebrated in primitive times; she is, therefore, guilty of an avowed opposition to the authority of Christ, has sacrilegiously mutilated this holy sacrament, and infringed the privileges of the Christian people. The command of Christ to drink the wine is as express as the command to eat the bread; nay, as foreseeing how, in after ages, this ordinance would be dismembered by the prohibition of the cup to the laity, he is even more explicit in his injunction concerning the cup than the bread. Of the bread, be simply said, "Take, eat;" but when he gave the cup, he said, "Drink ye all of it."—Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. According to the divine institution, therefore, both the elements are to be given to all the communicants. And as really as the bread and wine are given to the communicants, so Christ gives himself, with all his benefits, to the worthy receivers; and in taking these elements—in eating the bread and drinking the wine they profess to receive Christ by faith, and to rest their hope of pardon and salvation solely upon his death.