Reasons for Leaving the Church of Rome

by Laurence J. Nolan

There are also innumerable passages in the New Testament, where the word is must be taken to signify represent. First, St. Paul, speaking of the church, says, “it is the body of Christ.” Here the word is must be taken to signify represent. In the 13th chapter of Matthew, our Saviour says, in the 37th verse—“He that soweth the good seed is the son of man.” Again, in the 38th verse of same chapter he says, “the field is the world;” and in the 39th verse of same chapter he says, “the harvest is the end of the world;” and lastly, in Luke viii. 11, our Saviour says, “the seed is the word of God.” Now, as in all those passages the word is must be taken to signify represent, what is to prevent it being taken in the same sense in Luke xxii. 19, where our Saviour said, “this is my body?”—especially as in the following verse of the same chapter it must be taken for represent, where our Saviour says, “This cup is the New Testament;” for the cup was not transubstantiated into the New Testament, as you must all admit; and therefore it is that I was led to consider that the word is, in the 19th verse of the 22d chapter of Luke, should be taken in a figurative sense; especially as in that same verse our Saviour said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” And finally, there is nothing so common in our language as to make use of this word is in the sense of represent. For example, let me suppose that on passing through Sackville-street, in Dublin, and that a stranger on seeing Nelson’s pillar would ask me, who is that?—I, immediately understanding him, would say, that is Nelson: and certainly the word is, in those passages, must be taken to signify represent; for which reason, also, I was led to consider that the word is, in this passage of our Saviour, must be taken to signify represent, when he said, “This is my body.”

I know, my friends, that in opposition to these passages to which I have alluded, that you would introduce as an objection that passage in the first of the Corinthians, xi. 27, where it is mentioned, “Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord;” from which words you would wish to prove that the Apostles believed the real body and blood of Christ to be in the sacrament.

But, my friends, let you consider by whom and for what purpose the sacrament was instituted, and then your surprise will not be excited at the Apostle expressing himself in such strong language, although he would not believe that the real body and blood of Christ were present in the sacrament. By whom was it instituted? By Jesus Christ himself. For what purpose? As a last bequest to mankind—as a remembrance of that Jesus who left his throne of eternal justice to enter into the womb of a virgin mother—that Jesus who was conceived and born in time—who, during his mortal pilgrimage of thirty-three years, suffered all the extremities of privation to which human nature could be subject—and who finally placed the eternal seal of his blood upon the cause of man’s redemption. Is it a wonder then, that the Apostle, though not believing the real body and blood of Christ to be present, should have recourse to such strong language against those who would violate the respect due to that sacrament, which was to be a memorial of our Saviour, and which was to shew forth the Lord’s death until he come? Oh, my friends, if you or I were in the same situation as the Apostle, we would recur to a similarity of expression, to announce our horror to the wretch who would approach with polluted heart so sanctified a memorial; for whoever would disrespect such a sacrament, might be naturally said to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ.

My friends, before I close this third part of my intended pamphlet, I find it indispensably requisite to advert to that practice in your church, by which the priests prevent you from receiving the wine in the distribution of what they call their sacrament.

Now, my friends, this I consider not only to be a direct infringement upon the words, but also a direct violation of the command of our Saviour: for if the command of our Saviour, at the institution of the sacrament, were more strict in one part than another, it was surely more urgent with regard to the receiving of the wine; for it is said in Matth. xxvi. 27, that our Saviour after having taken the cup, and having given thanks, he gave it to his Apostles, saying, “Drink ye all of it;” and as it is said in Mark xiv. 23, “They all drank of it.” Now observe that this word all was not annexed to the eating of the bread, but only to the drinking of the wine, which circumstance must prove to the reflecting mind this important fact, that as our Saviour foresaw the abuse that in course of time would be adopted in the Roman church, by withholding the cup from the people, he has been therefore more urgent in his command as to the reception of the wine, than he has been as to the reception of the bread.

I am aware that your clergy have recourse to many stratagems in explanation of this difficulty. They say, that when you receive the bread, you not only receive the body but also the blood of our Saviour, and that therefore it is not requisite for you to receive the wine.

But, my friends, in answer to this I say, that if our Saviour, at his last supper, intended to give to his Apostles, in the mere substance of the bread, both his body and his blood, what was his utility in giving his body and his blood a second time in the wine? To do so would be an act of supererogation—it would be an act of perfect uselessness, and would be derogatory to the Redeemer in the institution of so important a sacrament: and hence I considered that withholding the cup from the people, is a direct infringement upon the words of our Saviour.

But your clergy also assert, that our Saviour, at his last supper, addressed the Apostles as priests, and not as the laity, and that therefore he made it incumbent only on the Apostles to receive the sacrament under both kinds. But, my friends, we read of no such distinction made by our Saviour; and moreover, when he said, “drink ye all of this,” he also added, “for this is my blood shed for many.” Now his blood was not shed for the Apostles alone, but also for the flock; and hence I conclude, that the people should receive the wine as well as the priests.

Again, my friends, if this passage, “drink ye all of this,” were directed to the Apostles alone, why is it that the priests do not always receive under both kinds; for I know that when they are not actually celebrating the mass, they only receive the communion under one kind? This seems a perfect anomaly—especially as our Saviour drew no line of distinction between a priest officiating and a priest communicating.

Finally, my friends, if these words, “drink ye all of this,” were addressed to the Apostles alone as priests, then the people should at no period of time have partaken of the cup. But that the people did partake of the cup is evident from the words of St. Paul in the 1st Corinthians, 11th chapter and 28th verse, where he says, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup;” which words of the Apostle were addressed to all the Corinthians, and consequently proving to us that the laity as well as the pastors, had partaken of the sacrament under both kinds. Popes Gellasius and Leo ordered the wine to be taken by the people on their receiving the sacrament; [43] while it was only in the fifteenth century, at the Council of Constance, that the use of the wine was prevented.