The Crux of Ritualism.

An Appeal to All Followers of Jesus Christ.

The whole Ritualistic movement in England is centered in the Holy Communion, or Last Supper, or the Eucharist, or Mass, or by whatever name this Sacrament of the Church is called. The doctrine of Transubstantiation, as taught in the decrees of the Council of Trent, or of Consubstantiation, as taught by Luther, or the doctrine of the Real Presence, as taught by many Anglican Divines, all have their root in the Last Supper of Jesus with his Disciples. If we can understand the significance of that Meal, the whole Ritualistic controversy will be understood and ended. Yet how few will take the trouble to understand what was actually done at that Last Meal of Jesus with his Disciples? It is with the object of drawing the attention of the people to the true question—the origin of the Supper—that underlies all the Ritualistic controversies that these few pages are written.

The four Gospels give an account of a Last Supper. Matthew in Chapter XXVI, Mark in Chapter XTV, Luke in Chapter XXII and John in Chapter XIII. John simply records a Last Meal, and has nothing about the institution of any commemorative feast. If there was instituted at the Last Meal of Christ with his Disciples a Feast that was to be commemorated for ever, and if the words used were to have the deep meaning that almost all branches of the Christian Church say they have, how comes it that there is no record of these in John?

It is recorded that the twelve Disciples were present. They were Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alpheus, Simon the Cananean, Thaddeus or Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot. Neither Mark nor Luke were present. The whole question as to the Sacrament turns on the question whether or not Jesus instituted a Feast to commemorate his impending death. Matthew and Mark have no record of any such institution. John has none either. It is only Luke that records that the words "This do in remembrance of me "were used, and that only for the bread, not for the drinking of the cup. Even if these words were used, they do not show that Jesus intended that the Feast should be kept as a commemorative one by his Church. This do—means this: do now, in my presence—in remembrance of me. These words are used when the bread is distributed. There is therefore nothing in the three Gospels inculcating that there was to be a commemorative Feast kept by the Church such as is attempted to be done in Christian Churches, and variously designated Holy Communion, Lord's Sapper, Eucharist, Mass, &c. page 4 And here the controversy might end, for the foundation on which the various doctrines of the Supper rest is taken away.

Before dealing with what St. Paul says about it in the Epistle to the Corinthians, let us see what the Feast was at which Jesus and his Disciples were present. Matthew, Mark and Luke agree in saying it was a Jewish Passover. How a Jewish Passover was celebrated may be shortly stated as follows:—The persons who were to join in the Feast took off their sandals, washed their hands and feet, and rested on couches. The Feast began by a goblet of wine—generally three parts wine and one of water—being passed round after the head of the family had utter a short thanksgiving prayer both for the wine and feast-day. The following was used:—" Blessed art thou O Lord our God, thou King of the Earth, who hast made the fruit of the vine and hast given us this feast-day." Bitter herbs were then served and eaten, and then biscuits of unleaven bread baked in flat round cakes almost half an inch thick, with fruit and some of the flesh of the roasted Paschal Lamb. The head of the family took one of the biscuits, broke it up with the blessing, "Praised be he who makes the bread come forth out of the earth," and handed the pieces to those present, who ate them together with some of the herbs dipped in the fruit. While the second cup was being prepared, the head of the house stated the significance of the Feast, and Psalms CXIII and CXIV were sung and then the cup went round. Then the bead of the house washed his hands again and ate the first piece of the Lamb, upon which the regular Feast began, all eating and joining in conversation cheerful and joyous. The meal was closed with a third cup of wine called "the cup of blessing," and as a fourth cup page 5 went round, the Psalms CXV and CXVIII were sung. Sometimes there was even a fifth cup.

It will be observed that Luke speaks of two cups—one before the Feast and one after the Supper. Mark implies that there was only one cup referred to—the one after Supper and Matthew agrees with Mark. Is the whole feast to be followed? Is the Paschal Feast of the Jewish Church to be kept? There is nothing in any of the Gospels showing that this Feast or the part of it—the breaking of bread and drinking of wine—was to become a permanent Sacrament of the Church. And when the Apostles were sent out as missionaries to convert the nations the founding of such a Sacrament is not mentioned. Baptism is mentioned, but not the Sacrament of the Last Supper. Are the Quakers far wrong in denying that any Sacrament was ever instituted?

St. Paul, however, will be relied on, and we may examine what he says. Two remarks, however, must be made. First, St. Paul was not present at the Last Supper, and he and Luke had both to trust to tradition. Matthew was there. Further, none of the other Apostles refer to the Sacrament. If such a rite was established, whether as a Sacrifice, as the Roman or Greek Church says; or as a Communion, such as Protestant Churches declare, how is it that the Epistles are silent? It is true that there is something in the Acts. It may be quoted.

First it will be noted that there is no mention here of any Sacrament at all. The early Christians were accustomed to eat together and to have Love Feasts (2 Peter I, 13; Judo 12) and it is of these Paul was speaking. Some brought their own food and drink to the Church, and the poor had little to bring. There is no hint in the New Testament that the Feast of the Lord's Supper was to become a Sacrament or invested with mystery. The early Christians in meeting and eating in common no doubt looked back to the last time Jesus met his Apostles, but not until long afterwards did the idea of a Sacrament or a Holy Communion arise.

The fact is that the true representation of the Love Feasts of the Early Church is the Tea Meeting or Soirees held in the Churches to-day.

It is not necessary, therefore, to discuss even the question of Transubstantiation, or Con ubstantiation, or Real Presence, or Divine Grace, nor the meaning of "This is my body," nor how the bread page 8 could be his body when he in his body was sitting with them, nor the question of Sacrifice—the foundation for all these discussions is nonexistent if the Feast was not made commemorative. And what (to summarise) is the testimony?

Matthew does not mention anything about a Commemorative Feast nor a Sacrifice, nor does Mark. Luke only refers to it in the breaking of bread. The Acts refer to a common meal, and St. Paul is dealing with the Love Feasts, and tells the Corinthian Christians they can eat them in their own houses. There is no statement that this common meal could not be eaten without any Apostle or Minister being present. Further, neither James, nor Peter, nor John, nor Jude seem to have ever heard of a Mass or a Communion or a Sacrament of the Supper.

The whole doctrine is a growth of later times, and is when it is a Sacrifice, a copy of the Pagan and Jewish sacrifices, without any warrant from the New Testament. With the doctrine of a Sacrifice or a Sacrament will fall the doctrine of Apostolic Succession and Episcopal Ordination which some Anglican Divines favour; but which Light foot, Hort, Hatch, Stanley, Hare, &c., have shown are without historical warrant.

And with the fall of these doctrines—a Sacrament of the Eucharist and Apostolic Succession—the value of Ritualism vanishes.

A few quotations from Ritualists showing how they view the "eating together" St. Paul wrote of, may be given, and it will be seen that for these doctrines there is no warrant in the New Testament, and that St. Paul gives no support to their views.

Reference might have been made to Baur's "Church History," Harnack's "History of Dogma," and to the writings of many of the Fathers as to how the doctrines of Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation and other doctrines regarding the Lord's Supper originated. Instead, however, of making an historical survey, tracing the growth of the doctrines in vogue to-day, it has been thought better to go to the New Testament to see if such doctrines can be found there. They page 10 cannot. It remains to be seen if those who take their religion, not from tradition, but from the Bible, will longer continue a practice that is without Scripture warrant and leads to such idolatry as the celebration of the Lord's Supper does.