Home

Our Pastor

Sermons Online

Church Covenant

Statement of Faith

Our Mission

Our Ministries

Searching for a
reformed church in
New England? See the New England
Reformed Fellowship

 

 

Pastor Lars Larson, PhD                                                                                           FBC Sermon #640
First Baptist Church, Leominster, MA                                                                        December 11, 2011
Words for children: covenant, cup, bread                                                                   Text: Matthew 26:26-30

The Gospel of Matthew (104)
Preparing for Jesus’ Death (cont.)

Our current progress through Matthew:

  I.  Prologue (chs. 1, 2)
 II.  The Kingdom Comes (chs. 3-7)
III.  The Works of the Kingdom (chs. 8-10)
IV.  The Nature of the Kingdom (chs. 11-13)
 V.  The Authority of the Kingdom (chs. 14-18)
VI.  Kingdom Blessings and Kingdom Judgments (chs. 19-25)
VII.  Passion and Resurrection (Chs. 26-28)
        A.  Betrayal and Arrest (26:1-56)
                1.  Preparing for Jesus’ Death (26:1-16)
                2.  Last Supper and Gethsemane (26:17-56)

*****************

        We will give our attention today to the institution and of the Lord’s Supper that the Lord Jesus brought before His disciples as they observed their last Passover meal together.  We will also rehearse the historic distinctions within Christendom regarding the nature and practice of observance of the Lord’s Supper.
        We read in Matthew 26:26-30:

        26Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”
        27And He took a cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.  29I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
        30And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

        I.  The ordinance that our Lord gave to His disciples (Matt. 26:26-30)

        The Lord Jesus sat with His disciples as they observed the last Passover meal that the Lord’s people would legitimately observe.  Thereafter, Christians observed the Lord’s Supper regularly, in place of the Passover.  The reason for this is that the Lord on this occasion replaced the Passover meal, which was a shadow of the reality to come, with the observance of the Lord’s Supper. 
        At some point during the meal, probably toward the end of the meal, the Lord instituted this ordinance that has come to be known as the Lord’s Supper or Communion.  Other groups within Christendom have called this ordinance or sacrament using other terms.  One common term used is that of the Eucharist, from the Greek word for “thanksgiving.”  Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and high church Anglicans, that would be include the Church of England in Britain or Episcopalians in America, call their observance of this sacrament the Mass. 

        The details that Matthew recorded for us are quite brief in number and not complex in meaning, or so it would seem.

                1.  The bread (Matt. 26:26)

        26Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”

        The Lord Jesus and His disciples had been eating the Passover meal when our Lord took the loaf of bread before them, blessed it, broke, it, and then distributed it to them.  He infused spiritual meaning to the bread, associating the bread with His own body.  He said, “This is my body”, in other words, the bread represents His body. 
        One cannot help but recall our Lord’s identification of Himself as the true, spiritual bread that God sent from heaven so that the world might have spiritual life.  This was in contrast to the physical bread that God gave daily to the children of Israel, the manna from heaven.  Jesus spoke these words in John 6.  The day after the Lord had multiplied the bread and fish to feed the multitude, the people came to Him again hoping for another daily provision of food. 

        25And when they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “Rabbi, when did You come here?”
        26Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.  27Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”
        28Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
        29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
        30Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?  31Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
        32Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven.  33For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
        34Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
        35And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life.  He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.”  (John 6:25-35)

        The bread in the Lord’s Supper is an emblem of Jesus Christ as the Source of spiritual life and the Sustainer of spiritual life in His people.  Eating the bread is emblematic of believing on Jesus fully.  This is rightly deduced also from John 6.  There Jesus said,

        47“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.  48I am the bread of life. 49Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead.  50This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die.  51I am the living bread which came down from heaven.  If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
        52The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
        53Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.  54Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.  55For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.  56He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.  57As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.  58This is the bread which came down from heaven-- not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6:47-58)

        Please do not misunderstand this point:  Our Lord was not speaking directly of the Lord’s Supper here in John 6.  He was teaching, however, that faith may be likened to eating His flesh as one would eat bread, as well as drinking His blood as one would drink wine.  Eating and drinking is what sustains our physical life; eating and drinking of Christ sustains spiritual life.  When we observe the Lord’s Supper we are confessing our faith in Christ as the only Giver and Sustainer of our spiritual life.  We are confessing our continual need of Him and our daily reliance upon Him.

                2.  The cup (Matt. 26:27-29)

        27And He took a cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.  29I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

        There were four cups of wine in the Passover meal.  By the way, it was fermented wine, but it was diluted with water about 3 parts water to 1 part wine.  There would be no leaven present at the meal, which is present in unfermented grape juice.  There were four of these cups.  Each one had meaning.  The order of the Passover meal in first century Palestine was observed in this way:

1)  Preliminary Course: A blessing to sanctify the feast day, cup I of wine, and the preliminary dish of herbs (green herbs, bitter herbs, and haroset [fruit puree with spices and vinegar).  The meal was served, but not yet eaten; cup II of wine was poured.

2)  Passover Liturgy: Recited by the paterfamilias in Aramaic in response to a question asked by the youngest boy, “Why is this night different?” (m. Pesah. 10:4).  It was followed by the singing in Hebrew of the Hallel, part I (Psalm 113[according to the school of Shammai]; Psalms 113-114 [according to the school of Hillel], and the drinking of cup II (the haggadah cup).

3)  The Meal Proper: A blessing was pronounced over the massot, “unleavened bread”; the Passover lamb was eaten with the massot and bitter herbs (Exod. 12:8); cup III, “the cup of the meal” (“the cup of blessing,” 1 Cor. 10:16), was blessed.

4)  Conclusion: Part II of the Hallel (Psalms 113-114 [according to the school of Hillel]) was sung.  (It is disputed whether a fourth cup of wine concluded the meal in the first-century Palestine.)[1]

        Which cup was drunk with its association to our Lord’s blood?  Probably the third, the cup of blessing.  This can be said in the light of 1 Corinthians 10:16: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?  The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”

        The Lord declared that the cup represented His “blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”  “Many” would benefit from the blood of the covenant of Jesus Christ.  They would receive the forgiveness of their sins.  Here we see that the Lord was saying that His death would be for the advantage of or benefit of “many.”  Our Lord spoke with language consistent with the biblical teaching of limited atonement, or better, definite atonement of His sacrifice.  Christ died with the intention to redeem His people, here described as “many.”

        The blood is “poured out”, which is the language of sacrifice.  Deuteronomy 12:27 and 28 read:

And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the meat and the blood, on the altar of the LORD your God; and the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out on the altar of the LORD your God, and you shall eat the meat.  28Observe and obey all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you and your children after you forever, when you do what is good and right in the sight of the LORD your God.

        The only way that God could have a relationship with us is if our sin problem was dealt with.  A curse lay upon us.  The Lord has said, “The soul that sins, it shall die.”  There is not a man or woman that has ever lived before or hereafter that can escape death, unless the death of another in their place occurs.  There must be a substitute to bear the penalty.  He must be sinless, or else He could not bear anybody’s guilt but His own.  He must be righteous Himself so as to be a suitable substitute as well as to be able to come forth from death once He experienced it.  God would have to provide for Himself such a Sacrifice.  Only in the shedding of His blood, the pouring out of His life as an offering of sin, could we have been forgiven for our sins.

        The Lord declared that His blood was “the blood of the covenant.”  This is the new covenant that our Lord made with His people.  In Matthew and Mark’s Gospels it is simply “the covenant.”  In Luke’s Gospel, the phrase includes the adjective “new.”

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22:20)

        This signals a great turning point in the record of redemptive history that is recorded for us in God’s Word, the Bible.  Our Lord was declaring that He was instituting the everlasting covenant that God has determined would be the basis of relationship between Himself and his people that would endure through eternity.

        First, let us understand our terms?  What is a covenant?  There are several meanings in the Scriptures depending on the context in which the word is found.  In many contexts it should be understood like a legal contract or agreement upon which two parties base a relationship with one another.  It may be a contract between two equal parties who are entering a formal relationship, like a business agreement or contract, or it may be the terms between two parties of unequal stature, like a conquering king establishes with a people which he has subjugated to himself.[2]  When the treaty is signed, the conqueror laid out the stipulations by which their relationship will be conducted.  He promised security for them.  They, in turn, promised allegiance, loyalty, and agree to send tribute.
        A covenant, however, may be seen to have been established between two individuals, frequently made before a witness, perhaps solemnized in a ceremony which may involve the offering of a sacrifice and a meal.  The ratification of the covenant in this sense would be seen to be done in the presence of God with Whom the meal is shared.[3]  From then on, the covenant would be appealed to as binding on the two parties, God having witnessed the agreement, Who, it would be assumed, would see to it either party would be punished if they failed to live according to its prescriptions.

        There are a number of major covenants mentioned in the Old Testament.  There was a covenant between God and Noah.  The sign of the covenant being the (rain)bow in the clouds.  It was an emblem of peace.  As a warrior who comes home after war has concluded and mounts his bow on the wall, for he no longer has use of it, so God has set up His battle bow in the clouds, to show that He is at peace with His people respecting the terms of the covenant between them. 
        There is also a very important covenant between God and Abraham (Genesis 15), which had the sign of physical circumcision of all the males.  God promised Abraham that He would be his God and a God to his descendants. 
        And then there was the covenant between God and (ethnic) Israel , which is commonly called the Mosaic covenant, or the “old covenant.”[4]  This covenant was based upon the Ten Commandments.  These two tablets of stone were the basis on which God would relate to the nation when they were in the land.  The sign of the covenant was the Sabbath observance.[5] 
        But our Lord instituted the “new covenant.”  This was needful in order to remove God’s curse from His people and to restore them to full relationship with God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  The new covenant also made provision for the perpetual obedience of His people through the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit indwelling His people.
        This new covenant was foreshadowed and promised in the Old Testament in numbers of places.[6]  God had declared that He would appoint His coming Servant (Christ) Himself as “a covenant of the people” (Isa. 42:6).  The Lord Jesus Himself is the covenant--the basis of the relationship between God and His people.  In Him are the terms of the covenant.  He is the sacrifice.  God promised that He would have a relationship with His people based on the person of this Servant.
        This was entirely new, and was absolutely necessary.  For the reason the people were in the predicament they were in was because they had violated the terms of the existing covenant.  And having broken its stipulations had incurred their just penalty.  (cf. Isaiah 1:2ff; Deut. 32:1).  Their bondage and enslavement was due to their having forsaken God and the covenant He had established with them.  They were in need of a new covenant (cf. Isa. 42:9), and this new covenant would be in His Servant/Son.  I is this covenant that we New Testament Christians live under and enjoy its privileges and blessings (cf. Matt. 26:26-29; Luke 22:19,20).  When we eat the bread and drink of the cup, we are confessing our faith, our confidence, our settled satisfaction with the provision that God Himself provided for sinners to know Him.  This new covenant is the one everlasting covenant by which God could and would maintain a relationship with fallen humanity (cf. Heb. 13:20).  It was promised to Abraham, “In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed,” affirmed to David (2 Sam. 23:5), promised through the prophets (Jer. 32:40; Ezek. 37:26), and fulfilled in Christ.

        At the conclusion of the Lord’s Supper, our Lord told His disciples that this would be the last occasion He would drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes; until He was raised from the dead.  Matthew recorded, “I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”  Does this refer to when He returns in glory?  It probably does refer to His Second Coming.

        Before we leave off the direct attention to these words, notice what our Lord did not say in the record of Matthew.  There is no command or instruction with the words, “As often as You eat or drink” or words to that end.  The other Gospels also do not contain these words of Jesus.  They are recorded by Paul, however, in 1 Corinthians 11:

        23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”  25In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood.  This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”  26For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. (1 Cor. 11:23-26)

It is the apostle Paul who alone records our Lord’s words about the ongoing observance of the meal.[6] 

        The episode in Matthew 26 concludes with verse 30, “And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.”  The Passover meal commonly ended with the singing of Psalm 113 or Psalm 114.

Psalm 113

Praise the LORD!
Praise, O servants of the LORD,
Praise the name of the LORD!
2Blessed be the name of the LORD
From this time forth and forevermore!
3From the rising of the sun to its going down
The LORD’S name is to be praised.

4The LORD is high above all nations,
His glory above the heavens.
5Who is like the LORD our God,
Who dwells on high,
6Who humbles Himself to behold
The things that are in the heavens and in the earth?

7He raises the poor out of the dust,
And lifts the needy out of the ash heap,
8That He may seat him with princes—
With the princes of His people.
9He grants the barren woman a home,
Like a joyful mother of children.
Praise the LORD! (Psa 113:1-9)

Psalm 114

When Israel went out of Egypt,
The house of Jacob from a people of strange language,
2Judah became His sanctuary,
And Israel His dominion.

3The sea saw it and fled;
Jordan turned back.
4The mountains skipped like rams,
The little hills like lambs.
5What ails you, O sea, that you fled?
O Jordan, that you turned back?
6O mountains, that you skipped like rams?
O little hills, like lambs?

7Tremble, O earth, at the presence of the Lord,
At the presence of the God of Jacob,
8Who turned the rock into a pool of water,
The flint into a fountain of waters. (Psa 114:1-8)

        II.  Historical belief and observance of the Lord’s Supper in Christendom

        Now we may assert at the outset that the Lord intended to say that when the Lord’s Supper is observed, the bread represented His body.

        26Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”

We would also assert that the Lord intended to say that when the Lord’s Supper is observed, the wine in the cup represented His blood.

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22:20)

        It would have been patently obvious to the disciples that this was His meaning.  Nevertheless, different teaching respecting these matters have been promoted in Christendom down through the centuries respecting the meaning of our Lord’s words to eat this bread and drink this wine. 
        This is very important, for not only is a promise of God’s blessing upon all who observe the Lord’s Supper rightly, there is a cure of God promised to those who observe the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner.

27Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  29For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.  30For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.  31For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. (1 Cor. 11:27-30)

        Let us consider the various teachings in Christendom.

               1.  Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and high church Anglicanism/Episcopalian belief and practice

        The position of Roman Catholicism has been that when Jesus said, “Take, eat; this is my body”, that our Lord was declaring the bread was actually His physical body and the wine was actually His literal blood.  In the observance of the Lord’s Supper, Rome teaches that the priest who supervises the Mass turns the bread into the literal body of the Lord.  And then with respect to the cup, Rome teaches that the priest changes the wine into the literal blood of Jesus.  This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church states their position:

At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine, that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood.  Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: ‘He took bread…’  ‘He took the cup filled with wine…’  The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ;…[7]

Rome also describes their understanding of the Eucharist to be a “bloodless sacrifice.”   Here is how it is described in their Catechism:

        The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: ‘The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of the priests, who then offered himself  on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.’  ‘In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.’[8]

        In a Catholic encyclopedia, the following is said of the Mass:

        Question: What is the Catholic Doctrine of the Mass?
        Answer:  That in the Mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead.

        Question:  What do you mean by the Mass?
        Answer:  The consecration and oblation of the body and blood of Christ under the sacramental veils or appearances of bread and wine: so that the Mass was instituted by Christ himself at his Last Supper:  Christ Himself said the first Mass, and ordained that His apostles and their successors should do the like.  Do this in remembrance of Me.” – Luke 22.
        Question:  What do you mean by a propitiatory sacrifice?
        Answer:  A sacrifice for obtaining mercy, or by which God is moved to mercy.

        Question:  How do you prove that the Mass is such a sacrifice?
        Answer:  Because in the Mass, Christ Himself, as we have seen, Chapter iv, is really present, and by virtue of the consecration is there exhibited and presented to the eternal Father under the sacramental veils, which by their separate consecration represent His death.  Now, what can more move God to mercy than the oblation of His only Son, there really present, and under this figure of death representing to His Father that death which He suffered for us.[9]

        This teaching of Rome was greatly objected to by the Protestant Reformers.  They rejected Rome’s claim to have an order of “priests” who were above the laity, who claimed to have the power to take Christ out of heaven and convert Him into the elements in the Eucharist.  The Protestants viewed this and proclaimed openly that this was a terrible, sinful act of idolatry.  Consider John Calvin’s assertions in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:30:

                1)  John Calvin’s Eight Charges Against the Mass

        If in Paul's times an ordinary abuse of the Supper could kindle the wrath of God against the Corinthians, so that he punished them thus severely, what ought we to think as to the state of matters at the present day? We see, throughout the whole extent of Popery, not merely horrid profanations of the Supper, but even a sacrilegious abomination set up in its room.
        In the first place, it is prostituted to filthy lucre (I Timothy 3:8) and merchandise.
        Secondly, it is maimed, by taking away the use of the cup.
        Thirdly, it is changed into another aspect, by its having become customary for one to partake of his own feast separately, participation being done away.
        Fourthly, there is there no explanation of the meaning of the sacrament, but a mumbling that would accord better with a magical incantation, or the detestable sacrifices of the Gentiles, than with our Lord's institution.
        Fifthly, there is an endless number of ceremonies, abounding partly with trifles, partly with superstition, and consequently manifest pollutions.
        Sixthly, there is the diabolical invention of sacrifice, which contains an impious blasphemy against the death of Christ.
        Seventhly, it is fitted to intoxicate miserable men with carnal confidence, while they present it to God as if it were an expiation, and think that by this charm they drive off everything hurtful, and that without faith and repentance. Nay more, while they trust that they are armed against the devil and death, and are fortified against God by a sure defense, they venture to sin with much more freedom, and become more obstinate.
        Eighthly, an idol is there adored in the room of Christ.
        In short, it is filled with all kinds of abomination

                2)  Martin Luther’s stand against the Mass

                Martin Luther was also very adamant against the Catholic Mass.  Here is a statement of some of Luther’s views[10]:

        Luther's most strenuous objection was to the concept of mass as sacrifice.  The Roman teaching that in the mass the priest offers a sacrifice and thus appeases God's anger denies the efficacy of Christ's atoning work.  The papal mass is therefore a persistent, daily attack on the article of justification.  It is an unremitting assault on the gospel and on the sufficiency of Christ's atonement. It completely distorts the nature of Christianity changing it from a religion of grace to one of works. In his Admonition Concerning the Sacrament (1530), Luther summarized his objections:

        They made the sacrament which they should accept from God, namely, the body and blood of Christ, into a sacrifice and have offered it to the selfsame God... Furthermore, they do not regard Christ's body and blood as a sacrifice of thanksgiving, but as a sacrifice of works in which they do not thank God for His grace, but obtain merits for themselves and others and first and foremost, secure grace. Thus Christ has not won grace for us, but we want to win grace ourselves through our works by offering to God His Son's body and blood. This is the true and chief abomination and the basis of all blasphemy in the papacy.[11]

                3)  The Roman Catholic response to Protestant teaching—The Council of Trent

        Rome has gone on record that they pronounce accursed of God if anyone refuses to embrace the teaching on the Mass that it espouses.  At the Council of Trent, which was convened from 1545-1563, was Rome’s effort to counter the Protestant Reformation.  The conclusions and canons declared there are viewed by Rome as binding and authoritative today as it was then.  Here are the declarations of Trent on them who objected or refuted what Rome said regarding the Mass:

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

CANON I.--If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.
CANON II.--If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.
CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.
CANON V.--If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema.
CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
CANON VIII.--If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.[12]

            2.  The views of Protestants on the Lord’s Supper

        There is not total agreement among Protestants on how to understand and practice the Lord’s Supper.  This lack of a unified agreement, I believe, is due to the fact that all Protestants came out of Roman Catholicism, and were attempting to correct their former belief and practice to conform to the Scriptures.  They simply were successful to varying degrees in achieving their aims.
        The various positions about the Lord’s Supper have terms to distinguish them from one another.  The doctrine of Rome respecting the Lord’s Supper is commonly referred to as transubstantiation.  It refers to the changing of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.  Another view is that of consubstantiation.  It holds that teaches that the bread and wine remain bread and wine, nevertheless, the real presence Christ is believed to be present in these elements when consecrated.  Some say that this is the historical view of Lutheranism, but some argue that Luther actually taught a view known as sacramental union.  The view espoused by Ulrich Zwingli in Zurich Switzerland is the view that the Lord’s Supper is simply a memorial to the death of Christ.  Memorialism is a view common to Baptist churches.  Reformed churches, which holds to a view first espoused by John Calvin, hold to a spiritual presence of our Lord in the observance of the Lord’s Supper.  Sometimes it is called real spiritual presence, or pneumatic presence. 

        This is the position set forth in our Baptist Confession of 1689, which reads as follows:

Chapter 30: Of the Lord's Supper

1.  The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other. (1 Cor. 11:23-26; 10:16, 17, 21)

2.  In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same. So that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ's own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect. (Heb. 9:25, 26, 28; 1 Cor. 11:24; Matt. 26:26, 27)

3.  The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, and, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants. (1 Cor. 11:23-26)

4.  The denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ. (Matt. 26:26-28; 15:9; Exod. 20:4, 5)

5.  The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before. (1 Cor. 11:27; 11:26-28).

6.  That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.  (Acts 3:21; Luke 14:6, 39; 1 Cor. 11:24, 25).

7.  Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. (1 Cor. 10:16; 11:23-26)

8.  All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves. (2 Cor. 6:14, 15; 11:29; Matt. 7:6)

*****************

Footnotes: