CHAPTER TWELVE: The Significance of the Lord's Supper (part 3 of 3)
The sacrament promised us that by the death of Jesus Christ we had been restored to life—not merely once, but that we are continually given life by it, because everything pertaining to our salvation was then accomplished.
The sacrifice of the Mass sings a very different song: that Jesus Christ must be sacrificed every day in order to benefit us in any way. The Supper was to be offered and distributed in the public assembly of the Church to instruct us concerning the communion by which we are all joined together in Jesus Christ. The sacrifice of the Mass breaks and destroys this fellowship.
For once the error prevailed that there must be priests who sacrificed for the people, as though the Supper had been reserved for them, it ceased to be communicated to the Church of believers as our Lord had commanded. The way was then opened for private Masses, which represent an excommunication rather than the fellowship instituted by our Lord, since the priest and sacrificer, intending to devour his sacrifice alone, separates himself from the whole body of believers.
Lest anyone be deceived, I call private Masses both those that are called High Masses because of their singing and loud cries, and those in which the priest alone mutters and mumbles. For all alike deprive the Church of common participation in the Supper.
But before concluding, I ask our doctors of the Mass: Since they know that obedience to God is better than all sacrifices and that he desires men to heed his voice more than to offer him sacrifices—
“To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.”
—how can they suppose that God approves this manner of sacrifice, for which they have no commandment and which they see cannot be proved by a single syllable of Scripture?
Moreover, since they hear the Apostle saying:
“No one ought to take to himself the name and honor of the priesthood except the one who is called by God, as Aaron was. Even Jesus Christ did not thrust himself into it, but obeyed the calling of his Father.”
they must either show that God is the author and institutor of their priesthood or confess that their order and office are not from God, and that, without being called to them, they have intruded themselves by their own presumption. But they cannot produce so much as one letter in support of their priesthood.
What, then, will become of the sacrifices that cannot be offered without a priest? What remains except that the blind should see, the deaf should hear, and even little children should understand the abomination of the Mass? Presented in a golden vessel—that is, under the name of the word of God—it has so intoxicated, bewildered, and stupefied all the kings and peoples of the earth, from the greatest to the least, that, becoming more senseless than brute beasts, they have placed the beginning and end of their salvation in this one execration.
Certainly, Satan never erected a more powerful engine for assaulting and overthrowing the kingdom of Jesus Christ. This is the Helen for whom the enemies of the truth now fight with such cruelty, fury, and rage. And truly she is a Helen with whom they commit adultery through spiritual fornication, the most abominable of all.
I do not here so much as touch with my little finger the gross and flagrant abuses by which they might claim that the purity of their sacred Mass has been profaned and corrupted: the shameful markets and commerce they conduct through it, the wicked and dishonorable profits these sacrificers make through their Masses, and the vast plunder by which they satisfy their greed.
I show only, and that in a few plain words, the nature of the Mass’s most holy “holiness,” by which it has merited for so long to be held in such admiration and veneration. A larger book would be required to explain and extol such great mysteries according to their worth. Nor do I wish to mingle here those filthy corruptions that are visible to everyone. My purpose is that all should understand that the Mass, considered in its purest and most excellent form and according to that by which it may be judged most favorably, is filled from root to summit with every kind of impiety, blasphemy, idolatry, and sacrilege, quite apart from its appendages and consequences.
Now, lest some quarrelsome person find occasion to contend with us again over the words “sacrifice” and “priest,” I shall briefly explain what I have meant throughout this discussion by the word “sacrifice” and the title “priest.”
I do not see what reason anyone can have for extending the name “sacrifice” to every ceremony and observance pertaining to the worship of God. For we see that, according to the constant usage of Scripture, the name “sacrifice” is applied to what the Greeks sometimes call thysia and sometimes prosphora, terms that generally signify everything offered to God.
Nevertheless, we must employ a distinction here, one derived from the sacrifices of the Mosaic law, under whose shadows the Lord intended to represent to his people the whole truth concerning spiritual sacrifices. Although there were many kinds of these sacrifices, they may all be reduced to two classes.
An offering was made either for sin, as a form of satisfaction by which guilt was atoned for before God, or as a sign of divine worship and a testimony to the honor rendered to him.
Under this second class were included three kinds of sacrifice. Whether men sought God’s favor and grace by way of supplication, rendered praise to him for his benefits, or simply exercised themselves in renewing the remembrance of his covenant, all these sacrifices served to testify to the reverence they bore toward his name. To this second class, therefore, must be assigned what the law calls burnt offerings, drink offerings, grain offerings, firstfruits, and peace offerings.
For this reason, we likewise divide sacrifices into two classes. We call the first the sacrifice appointed for the honor and reverence of God, by which believers acknowledge him as the one from whom every good comes and proceeds and therefore render him the thanks that are his due. The other we call the propitiatory or expiatory sacrifice.
An expiatory sacrifice is one offered to appease God’s wrath, satisfy his justice, and thereby purge and cleanse sins, so that the sinner, purified from their stains and restored to the purity of righteousness, may be received again into God’s favor.
Such was the name given to the sacrifices offered under the law to blot out sins—not because they were sufficient to abolish iniquity or reconcile men to God, but because they prefigured the true sacrifice, which was finally and truly perfected by Jesus Christ. It was accomplished by him alone because no one else could perform it, and it was offered only once because the power and efficacy of that one sacrifice made by Jesus Christ are eternal.
He testified to this with his own voice when he said:
“It is finished.”
That is, everything necessary to reconcile us to the Father’s favor and obtain forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and salvation was completed, consummated, and accomplished by his one offering. Nothing was lacking, and therefore no other sacrifice could afterward have any place.
We must therefore conclude that it is an intolerable reproach and blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the sacrifice he made for us by his death upon the cross if anyone repeats an offering with the intention of thereby obtaining forgiveness of sins, reconciling God, and acquiring righteousness.
Yet what else is done in the Mass except that, through the merit of a new offering, we are made participants in the passion of Jesus Christ? And, lest there should be any limit to their profit, they thought it too little to say that their sacrifice applied equally and collectively to the whole Church. They added that it was within their power to apply it particularly to one person or another as they pleased—or rather, to anyone willing to pay well enough to purchase their merchandise.
Although they could not set its price as high as Judas did, they nevertheless retained a likeness in the number, so that by some token they might reproduce the example of their master. Judas sold Jesus Christ for thirty pieces of silver; these men, as far as lies within their power, sell him for thirty copper coins. But Judas sold him only once; these men sell him whenever they find a buyer.
In this sense we also deny that they are priests: namely, that by such an offering they intercede with God for the people, reconcile God to men, and accomplish the expiation and cleansing of sins. For Jesus Christ is the sole Priest and High Priest of the New Testament. All priesthoods have been transferred to him and are concluded and brought to an end in him.
Even if Scripture had made no mention of the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ, the fact that God abolished the ancient priesthoods without instituting another new one would leave the Apostle’s argument invincible:
“No one takes the honor of the priesthood upon himself unless he is called by God.”
With what confidence, then, do these sacrilegious men, who boast of being the slayers of Jesus Christ, dare to call themselves priests of the living God?
We do not use the words “priest” and “priesthood” according to the meaning of the Greek word from which they are derived, which signifies an elder. In that sense, true ministers of the Church might rightly be called priests, and their office a priesthood. But we use the terms according to their common meaning, so that “priest” signifies a sacrificer ordained to offer God the kind of sacrifice we have described, and “priesthood” signifies the dignity, state, and office of such a sacrificer.
Under the other kind of sacrifice, called the sacrifice of thanksgiving or praise, are included all duties of love. When these are performed toward our neighbors, they are in some measure rendered to God, who is thereby honored in his members. Also included are all our prayers, praises, thanksgivings, and everything else we do to serve and honor God.
All these offerings depend upon a greater sacrifice, by which we are consecrated and dedicated in body and soul as holy temples to God. For it is not enough that our inward actions should be devoted to his service; it is fitting that we ourselves first, and then all our works, should be dedicated to him, so that everything within us may serve his glory and exalt his magnificence.
This kind of sacrifice contributes nothing toward appeasing God’s wrath, obtaining forgiveness of sins, or meriting and acquiring righteousness, but is directed solely toward magnifying and glorifying God. For it cannot be acceptable to him unless it proceeds from those who, having obtained forgiveness of sins, are already reconciled to him and justified from another source.
Moreover, such sacrifice is so necessary to the Church that it cannot exist without it. It will therefore continue forever, as long as the people of God endure, just as the Prophet has written:
“From the east to the west, my name is great among the nations; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean and pure offering. For my name is greatly to be feared among the nations, says the Lord.”
So far are we from taking this sacrifice away. Saint Paul likewise commands us:
“Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, which is your reasonable service.”
He spoke with great precision when he added that this is the reasonable service we render to God. For he meant a spiritual manner of serving and honoring God, which he tacitly contrasted with the carnal sacrifices of the Mosaic law.
In this same way, alms and acts of kindness are called sacrifices in which God takes pleasure. The generosity of the Philippians, by which they relieved Saint Paul’s need, is called:
“An offering of a sweet fragrance, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.”
Likewise, all the works of believers are called spiritual sacrifices. Why pursue the matter at length, since this manner of speaking occurs so frequently in Scripture?
Even while the people were still being guided under the elementary instruction of the law, the Prophets made sufficiently clear that the outward sacrifices contained a substance and truth that remain today in the Christian Church. For this reason David prayed:
“Let my prayer ascend before the Lord like incense.”
And Hosea calls thanksgivings:
“The calves of our lips.”
Elsewhere, David calls them:
“Sacrifices of praise.”
—Psalm 50:14, 23
The Apostle followed him in this when he commanded us:
“Offer to God sacrifices of praise, that is, the fruit of lips that glorify his name.”
It is impossible for this kind of sacrifice not to be present in the Supper of our Lord. For when we proclaim and commemorate his death and render thanksgiving, we do nothing other than offer a sacrifice of praise.
Because of this office of sacrificing, all Christians are called:
“A royal priesthood.”
For through Jesus Christ we offer to God the sacrifice of praise—that is, the fruit of lips confessing his name, as we have heard from the Apostle. For we could not appear before God with our gifts and offerings without an intercessor. Jesus Christ is that Mediator who intercedes for us and through whom we offer ourselves and all that belongs to us to the Father.
He is our High Priest, who, having entered the sanctuary of heaven, opens and grants us access to it. He is our altar, upon which we place our offerings. In him we dare everything that we dare. In sum, he is the one who:
“Has made us kings and priests to the Father.”
If anyone wishes to argue from the authority of the Ancients that the sacrifice made in the Supper must be understood differently from the way we have explained it, I shall give a brief answer. If the purpose is to support the fantasy devised by the Papists concerning the sacrifice of the Mass, the Ancients must not be brought forward in its favor, since they all teach clearly and with one voice that only the remembrance of the one sacrifice made by Jesus Christ is celebrated in the Supper.
For our part, we do not deny that the offering of Jesus Christ is so presented to us there that we may virtually behold him with our eyes upon the cross, just as the Apostle says:
“Jesus Christ was portrayed as crucified among the Galatians,”
when the preaching of his death had been plainly declared to them.
Yet I perceive that even the Ancients turned this remembrance into something other than what the Lord’s institution required, since their Supper represented some sort of spectacle of an immolation repeated, or at least renewed. Therefore, nothing is safer for believers than to adhere to the Lord’s pure and simple ordinance.
Indeed, if we acknowledge that this is the Lord’s Supper and not man’s, then neither human authority, length of time, nor any other appearance should move or draw us away from his will. Therefore, when the Apostle wished to restore the Supper to its proper integrity among the Corinthians, where it had been corrupted by certain abuses, the best and shortest course he could find was to recall them to this one institution, from which he shows that the perpetual rule must be taken.
Here readers may see, in a brief summary, everything we have thought necessary to know concerning these two sacraments, whose use was given to the Christian Church from the beginning of the New Testament until the consummation of the age.
Baptism is, as it were, an entrance into the Church and a first profession of faith. The Supper is a continual nourishment by which Jesus Christ spiritually feeds his believers. Therefore, just as there is:
“One God, one faith, one Christ, and one Church, which is his body,”
so there is only one Baptism, which is never repeated. But the Supper is frequently distributed so that those who have once been received and engrafted into the Church may understand that they are continually nourished and fed by Jesus Christ.
Apart from these two sacraments, just as no other has been instituted by God, so the Church of believers must receive no other. It is easy to understand that establishing or instituting new sacraments does not belong to human power or authority if we remember what has been sufficiently and plainly explained above: namely, that the sacraments are instituted by God to teach us concerning some promise of his and to testify to his favor toward us.
“Who has been the Lord’s counselor?”
No one, therefore, can certainly promise us anything concerning God’s favor, assure us what disposition he bears toward us, or declare what he wills to give and what he wills to deny. It follows that no one can ordain or institute a sign that testifies to any will or promise of God. God alone, by giving us a sign, can testify concerning himself toward us.
I shall state it more briefly and perhaps more bluntly, but also more plainly: there can never be a sacrament without a promise of salvation. All men assembled together could not of themselves promise us anything concerning our salvation. Therefore, they cannot by themselves ordain or establish any sacrament.
Let the Christian Church, then, be content with these two. Let it not only refuse to admit, approve, or acknowledge any other at present, but let it never desire or expect a third until the consummation of the age.
Various signs were indeed ordained for the Jews at different times, in addition to those they ordinarily possessed—such as the manna, the water flowing from the rock, the bronze serpent, and others like them. But this diversity was intended to warn them not to rest in such figures, whose condition was not permanent, but to expect from God something better that would remain unchangeable and without end.
Our situation is entirely different, for Jesus Christ has been revealed and manifested to us:
“In him are hidden all the treasures of knowledge and wisdom.”
These treasures are present in him with such abundance and fullness that to expect or demand any new addition to them would truly be to tempt God and provoke him to anger against us. We must hunger only for Jesus Christ, seek him, behold him, learn him, and hold fast to him until that great Day comes when our Lord will fully manifest the glory of his kingdom and openly reveal himself to us as he is.
For this reason, the time in which we live is designated in Scripture as “the last hour,” “the last days,” and “the last times,” so that no one may be deceived by any vain expectation of some new doctrine or revelation.
“Having formerly spoken many times and in many ways through the Prophets, the Lord has spoken in these last days through his beloved Son.”
He alone can reveal the Father to us.
Now, just as men are forbidden to make or institute new sacraments in the Church of God, so it would be desirable that as little human invention as possible should be mingled with those sacraments instituted by God. For just as wine is weakened and loses its flavor when mixed with water, and the whole batch of dough is soured by leaven, so the purity of God’s mysteries is only defiled and corrupted when man adds anything of his own.
Yet we see how greatly the sacraments, as practiced today, have degenerated from their original purity. Everywhere there is far more pomp, ceremony, and theatrical display than there ought to be, while no account or mention is made of the word of God, without which the sacraments themselves are not sacraments.
Even the ceremonies instituted by God cannot appear amid so great a multitude of others, but are oppressed and cast into the background. How little do we see in Baptism of that which alone ought to shine forth and appear—namely, Baptism itself! The Supper was entirely buried when it was transformed and converted into the Mass. It is seen in some measure only once a year, and then torn apart, cut up, separated, broken, divided, and wholly disfigured.
How much better it would be if, whenever anyone was to be baptized, he were presented before the congregation of believers; if the whole Church, witnessing, watching, and praying over him, offered him to God; if the confession of faith in which the person being received into the faith must be instructed were recited; if the promises contained in Baptism were set forth and declared; if he were then baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and if, finally, he were sent forth with prayers and thanksgiving.
In this way, nothing useful to Baptism would be omitted, and that one ceremony of which God is the author would shine forth most clearly without being obscured by any foreign corruptions.
As for whether the person being baptized is entirely immersed in water or whether water is merely poured upon him, this is a matter of no importance. According to the differing circumstances of various regions, it should remain within the liberty of the churches, for the sign is represented in either form. Nevertheless, the word “baptize” itself signifies complete immersion, and it is certain that the practice of entirely immersing the person was observed in the ancient Church.
As for the sacred Supper, it could be administered very fittingly if it were offered to the Church frequently, and at least once each week, in the following manner. First, the service should begin with public prayers, followed by the preaching of the word. Then, with bread and wine set upon the table, the minister should recite the institution of the Supper and afterward declare the promises left to us in it. At the same time, he should exclude from it all those who are barred by the Lord’s prohibition.
Prayer should then be made that, just as our Lord in his kindness has granted us this sacred nourishment, so he would also be pleased to teach and prepare us to receive it rightly through faith and heartfelt gratitude; and that, since we are not worthy of such a banquet in ourselves, he would by his mercy make us worthy of it.
At this point, psalms should be sung or some portion of Scripture read. Then the believers should partake of this holy food in a fitting and orderly manner, with the ministers breaking and distributing the bread and presenting the cup.
When the Supper has ended, there should be an exhortation to pure faith, a steadfast confession of it, love, and conduct worthy of Christians. Finally, thanksgiving should be rendered and praises sung to God.
When all these things had been completed, the Church and congregation should be dismissed in peace.
Whether believers take the bread into their own hands or not; whether they divide it among themselves or each one eats what has been given to him; whether they return the cup to the minister or pass it to the person beside them; whether the bread is leavened or unleavened; whether the wine is red or white—all this is immaterial and of no consequence. For these matters are indifferent and left to the liberty of the Church.
Nevertheless, it is certain that the practice of the ancient Church was for everyone to receive the bread into his own hand. And Jesus Christ said:
“Divide it among yourselves.”
It is evident from the histories that before the time of Alexander, Bishop of Rome, the bread used in the Supper was leavened bread of the ordinary kind commonly eaten. Alexander was the first to delight in using unleavened bread. I see no reason for this except that by a novel spectacle he wished to draw the eyes of the common people into admiration rather than instruct their hearts in true religion.
I appeal to all who are touched, however slightly, by any affection for godliness: Do they not plainly see how much more clearly God’s glory shines forth in such a use of the sacraments, and how much greater sweetness and spiritual consolation believers receive from it, than from these foolish and empty theatrical displays? Such spectacles serve no purpose except to deceive the minds of the people, who marvel at them and are filled with dread.
They call this keeping the people in religion and the fear of God, when in fact the people, stupefied and made senseless by superstition, are led wherever these men please.
If anyone wishes to defend these inventions on the ground of antiquity, I am not ignorant of how ancient the use of chrism and breathing upon the candidate in Baptism is, nor how soon after the age of the Apostles the Supper of our Lord became, as it were, corroded by human inventions. But such is the rashness and folly of human presumption and audacity that it cannot restrain itself from playing with the mysteries of God.
We, on the contrary, must remember that God esteems obedience to his word so highly that he wills us to judge by it both his angels and the whole world.
--------------