Reasons for Leaving the Church of Rome

by Laurence J. Nolan

Again I assert, there was no sacrifice at the last supper, for there was no sacrificial act performed by our Saviour at the time, nor the slightest intimation of a sacrificial act given, nor any of those ceremonies which are connected with a sacrifice gone through at the time by our Redeemer. Our Saviour was simply at the table, surrounded by his disciples. No altar was at hand—no victim suffered—no blood was shed, as Roman Catholics admit, nor was there any offering made but a simple distribution of bread and wine made among the apostles; and I believe you must allow, that you had never heard or read of a sacrifice without some of those appendages of either an altar, the suffering of a victim, the shedding of blood, or an offering being made on the occasion, none of which were witnessed at the last supper. Therefore there was no sacrifice at the last supper.

Finally, I assert, there was no sacrifice at the last supper; for if the sacrifice at the last supper were the same propitiatory sacrifice as that offered on the cross, I ask, in the language of candor and religion, what was the utility of our Saviour going through the bitter ordeal of his passion—why undergo the painful ceremony of being treacherously betrayed with the signal of peace by one of his disciples—denied by another, and abandoned by all in the hours of his affliction? Why allow himself to be dragged like a common malefactor from place to place—then to be clothed in the garb of pretended loyalty, and afterwards to be greeted with all the insulting gratulations of a mock king? Why remain tied to a pillar, there to be most cruelly scourged afterwards to be crowned with a diadem of thorns? Why undergo the pangs, the torments, the excruciating agonies on the gibbet of a cross, and then seal with his blood the cause of man’s redemption? Why all these, if the sacrifice at the last supper were the same propitiatory sacrifice for the remission of sins as the sacrifice on the cross? Oh, my friends, it has been, and is my firm conviction, that if the sacrifice at the last supper were the same as the sacrifice on the cross, it could not be blasphemous to assert that the sacrifice of the cross was nugatory—was an act perfectly useless—was inconsistent with and unbecoming the attributes of the Deity; and, therefore, I conclude there was no sacrifice at the last supper, and consequently no sacrifice at the mass, since, as I mentioned before, the supposed sacrifice at the last supper and that of the mass are the same in your opinion.

I know that Roman Catholics assert, that there is nothing hard or impossible to God, and that, therefore, our Saviour could give his body and his blood to his Apostles at the last supper.

Now, my friends, this assertion is perfectly incorrect; for there are many things relatively impossible to God; when I say relatively, I mean with relation to these laws which impose upon the Deity a moral and voluntary restraint, which restraint he cannot transgress in accordance with his divine attributes; and hence it is, that, owing to those laws, God cannot cause a thing to exist and not to exist at the same time; nor can he cause a part of any material body to be greater than the whole substance of that body, that part and entire substance remaining in their self-same, sensible, and evidently unchanged state. But those two unnatural suppositions must be credited, if we are to believe that our Saviour gave his body and his blood to the Apostles at the last supper. First, we should believe that he existed and did not exist at the same time; existed, inasmuch as he gave himself to the Apostles, and did not exist, inasmuch as the Apostles consumed his body by eating it, and all this while he was sitting and conversing with them. Therefore to suppose, that our Saviour gave his body and his blood to the Apostles at the last supper to be eaten by them would be to suppose, that he existed and did not exist at the same time, which is absurd, and relatively impossible on the part of God.

Secondly, should we suppose that our Saviour gave his body and blood to his Apostles at the last supper, it would then follow that a part of his body was greater than the entire of his body.

In order to shew this, I will not advert to those who would say, that our Saviour had actually partaken of the bread which he had distributed among the Apostles, and consequently made his mouth, which was only a part of his body, to consume his entire body. I will not dwell upon such an assertion, but will come to one no less evident; and that is, if our Saviour gave his body to be eaten by his Apostles at the last supper, it would then follow that he grasped his entire body within the narrow compass of his hand, and thus make his hand, which was only a part, greater than his entire body, as the container must naturally be greater than the contained; and all this to be done while that hand and body remained in the self-same, sensible, and evidently unchanged form. Oh, repugnant words! Oh, irreconcileable doctrine! Oh, monstrous assertion! How can a man slumber under such a belief? How can he rest in the consciousness of such an error? Methinks that should an individual after serious reflection tacitly submit to such an irrational belief, it would be requisite that he should be invested by the Deity with faculties the very reverse, of what he now enjoys; that he should possess a reason that would reconcile truths that are intuitively evident with falsehoods that are intuitively false; and which should unite principles that are eternally true and immutably fixed, with those that imply self-destroying contradictions.

I will give you another argument from the Scriptures, which tended to confirm me in my disbelief as to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. That my remarks upon this subject may be obvious to the capacity of each of you, I refer you now to the 22d chapter of St. Luke, which is explanatory of the institution of the sacrament at the last supper. It is said of our Saviour in the 19th and 20th verses of that chapter, “and he took bread and gave thanks and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, this is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me.” Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you” 20th verse. Now you Roman Catholics assert, that the words in the 19th verse ought to be taken in their literal sense, that is to say, that when our Saviour spoke these things, “this is my body,” that he actually converted the bread into his body and gave it to be eaten by his Apostles.

But if I can shew you many passages both in the Old and New Testament, where the word is must be taken in a figurative, sense. I do not see what is to prevent the word is (in the passage alluded to) from being also taken in a figurative sense. But there are many passages in the Old as well as the New Testament, where the word is must be taken to signify represent, or, what is the same, where it must be taken to signify the figure or memorial of a thing.

First, you will find in the 17th chapter of Genesis where God speaking of the circumcision says, in the 10th verse, “This is my covenant.” Now the circumcision was not transubstantiated into the covenant. Therefore the word is in this passage must be taken in a figurative sense: that is, to signify the figure or memorial of the covenant.

Look also to the 12th chapter of Exodus, where God after having spoken of the lamb that was to be sacrificed in memorial of his passing over the houses of the Israelites and his smiting all the first born in the houses of the Egyptians, he says, as is mentioned in the 11th verse, “It is the Lord’s Passover.” Now the word is in this passage must be taken to signify represent, as the lamb could not be said to be transubstantiated into the Passover.