Paragraphs 29.2–29.6

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 concomitancy, 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 bended 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 changed 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. 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. 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 as common bread and wine, but as the sacred symbols of Christ’s body and blood. The minister is also to take and break the bread. The breaking of the bread is an essential part of this ordinance, and represents the breaking of the body of Christ under the burden of our sins. To divide the bread into small pieces, called wafers, and put a wafer into the mouth of each of the communicants, is a corruption of the Church of Rome, which takes away the significant action of breaking the bread. The minister is further to take the cup, and give both the elements to 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.